Filibusters

Yeah, it actually made for pretty entertaining TV last night---or at least what I saw of it, maybe an hour and a half---though I'll admit to being somewhat conflicted about it: First, because the filibusterer-in-chief is a Randian wack job who wants to repeal most of the 20th century, and later, because comic relief was outsourced to a guy named Ted Cruz, who might be the most heinous human being to be elected to the Senate in the last half-century, and that's saying a lot. On the other hand, I'd have to say that overall, it's better to require the obstructionists to hold the floor if they want to gum up the works rather than submit to the "silent" filibuster, which accomplishes the same ends without requiring the obstructionists to do the actual work of obstruction; and also, frankly, because it forces all of us---or at least, it did last night---to really reflect on some important constitutional issues, and to discuss them at length with our friends, Twitterers, countrymen, etc. And when we do, we're likely to find that they're often thornier and more complex than we had initially thought they were, and that the policy solutions to the problems they pose are often more delicately nuanced. That's a healthy sign for a democracy, seems to me, certainly more so than the usual stage-managed theatrics we typically see coming from the Congress and the White House. We'd probably be better off as a Republic if we didn't have a filibuster at all anymore, but since we're still stuck with it for as long as anyone can foresee, it's not a total waste of time if it helps us achieve a better understanding of our unique form of government and the Constitution that defines it, so two-and-a-half cheers for the Randian wack job. He may be an imperfect messenger, but that doesn't invalidate the message he labored to deliver.

---Baron V