Header Ads

Make Republicans talk about the Capitol riot

May 20, 2021

Get Jonathan Bernstein's newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe

Thirty-five Republicans joined the Democrats who voted unanimously in the House of Representatives on Wednesday to establish a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Now the legislation goes to the Senate, where Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose support would almost certainly have been enough to defeat a filibuster by Republicans hostile to scrutinizing the deadly pro-Trump riot, has decided to oppose it.

I've often said that it would usually be counterproductive to force lawmakers to perform filibusters by giving giving marathon speeches on the Senate floor, the way they do it in the movies but not in real life. But this might be one time where Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democrats might defeat a filibuster by insisting that Republicans hold the floor, or by threatening to do so.

Normally, forcing the minority party to give speeches in hopes of wearing down its members is ineffective for two reasons. The first is that senators actually like to talk! For most bills, opponents would be more than happy to orate at length about how awful the legislation would be. Even if it's a popular measure, it's likely that the opponents' constituents don't like it. Not to mention that, if it's a Democratic bill, Republican-aligned media would normally be eager to treat Republican senators speaking against it as heroes. 

It's also a matter of political hardball. If the majority tries to defeat a filibuster by attrition, it gives the minority more reason to prove that its members are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat the bill. Indeed, the knowledge that the minority would do that is part of why Senate majorities have eliminated talking filibusters so that they can get on with other business. 

So why might things be different when it comes to a Capitol assault commission? For one thing, even if 41 or more Republicans would vote against shutting down a filibuster, and therefore against establishing the commission, I suspect that few of those Republicans are eager to champion this particular fight.

Oh, Missouri's Josh Hawley and Texas's Ted Cruz and a few others would be glad to be martyrs for the cause of covering up former President Donald Trump's role in inciting the rioters (and perhaps also the actions of some Republicans in the House) and wouldn't mind being on the side of the far-right Proud Boys and other insurrectionists. But only a handful of senators actually voted on Jan. 6 to overturn the election of President Joe Biden. The others might be willing to vote against a commission and might give a short speech explaining  that vote, but I suspect they mostly want the whole problem to go away as quickly and quietly as possible. 

Which puts them in a worse bind.  After all, a talking filibuster would receive plenty of news coverage, which would mainly go to those willing to talk. So those who oppose the commission because it would distract from unrelated talking points Republicans want to focus on would instead wind up not just with Jan. 6 in the headlines anyway, but with the Trumpiest senators setting the terms of debate for the Republican side of the argument.

Under those circumstances, it's possible that some Republicans who would be willing to oppose the commission by taking a quick vote and moving on might decide that a long, active filibuster would harm the party and themselves. And that's when the logic about avoiding attrition turns around; better to vote for cloture now than to be forced into a talking filibuster and have it collapse after a few days. 

There is a downside to the strategy: It's possible that the filibuster would hold, and valuable Senate floor time would be lost. But Democrats could pull the plug whenever they wanted to. And in the meantime, I suspect Democrats don't mind the idea of Republicans talking about how unfair it is to investigate an insurrection against the U.S. government. 

It's not entirely clear this will be necessary. Over three times as many House Republicans voted for the commission as had voted for impeachment back in January. Looked at another way, more than a third of those who voted against several challenges to state electoral college tallies (and therefore against Trump) on Jan. 6 voted for the commission now. If those ratios hold in the Senate, the filibuster against the bill will be broken the normal way, with the supporters having more than the 60 votes they'd need for a cloture vote to cut off debate. And while McConnell's vote would have made things easy, we have no idea from the reporting so far whether he'll wind up typical of the middle group (those who voted against impeachment and also against the state challenges) or not. 

Either way, it's hard to see any significant downside in at least threatening to force a talking filibuster this time. 

1. Dan Drezner on baby busts, demographics, and great power competition.

2. Matt Grossmann speaks with Seo-young Silvia Kim and David Darmofal about polarized politics.

3. Erika Moreno at the Monkey Cage on fighting for human rights in Colombia.

4. James Wallner on Representative Liz Cheney. He's not wrong that party leaders work for the rank-and-file and not the other way around — or at least that's how it should be. But that principle, important as it is, can't be more important than the decision by the Republican Party to stand against democracy.

5. Greg Sargent talks with Norm Ornstein about options for investigating the Jan. 6 attack if the commission fails in the Senate. Excellent. 

6. Ellen Barry on young activists involved in Massachusetts politics.

7. And my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Justin Fox on taxes in California and Texas.

Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.
 

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal. Find out more about how the Terminal delivers information and analysis that financial professionals can't find anywhere else. Learn more.
 

Post a Comment

No comments

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )