Typically I’m not in favor of pointing out hypocrisy to serve as proof of any specific individual fault.  Two main reasons, most people are hypocritical on some level; meaning they do things they would advise others against.  Secondly, sometimes those things labeled as hypocrisy are nothing more than changing opinions with changes in time, facts, or understanding.

But sometimes… it’s just too easy.

Senator Harkin writing about the need to change filibuster procedures in the Senate in order to make it easier to stop one.  At the Huffinton post (whole thing here):

…the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster by Republicans is no joke.

…The problem is not only that Republicans are using the filibuster to kill good bills that would help working Americans. The larger problem is that the Republicans’ indiscriminate use of the filibuster has made it all but impossible to conduct everyday business in the Senate. On an almost daily basis, the Republican minority — just 41 Senators — stops bills from even coming to the floor for debate and amendment.

…The Senate cannot continue down this path of obstruction, paralysis, and de facto minority rule. That is why I have introduced a bill to change the Standing Rules of the Senate to reform the cloture procedure in the United States Senate…

& the almost perfect statement from Mr. Harkin, his insistence on his consistency:

….I want to emphasize that I am offering this bill with clean hands. I introduced the exact same bill in 1995, when Democrats were in the minority in the Senate. So this legislation is not about one party or the other gaining advantage. It is about the Senate, as an institution, operating more fairly, effectively, and small-d democratically….

As I read this I thought…. it seems the parties have changed sides once again as I recall Republicans trying to do this during the Bush years.  & after about an entire 30 second search (more than either the Huffington Post or Mr. Harkin can do) I found this great quote when the Republicans were attempting similar things (NY Times, 2005):

…Democrats asserted one after another today that the Republican leadership’s attempt to bypass the filibuster – a procedural obstacle that requires 60 of the Senate’s 100 votes to overcome – is an attempt to change two centuries of Senate tradition. To do so, said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, would be “the end of the Senate as we know it” because it would dash the protections that the Senate has always afforded lawmakers in the minority and, by extension, their constituents….

So apparently, we have, according him, he was for filibuster reform in 1995, against it in 2005, and for it in 2010.

& for consistency sake, there is very likely a Republican doing similar flips.  President Obama spoke about the anger the public had at, not just individual parties or individual politicians, but at politics in general.  Back room deals, lying for political expediency, et, etc, etc.

Of course he went on in his State of the Union speech to claim another reason people are angry: that the government doesn’t work for the people.  It should be faster, more efficient, and more responsive to the people’s needs.

Funny thing though, this is exactly why the filibuster is needed, exactly what it is intended for, and exactly why Mr. Harkin & Mr. Obama are both wrong.

Among other reasons, historically the most “efficient” governments, are among the most oppressive.  We no longer seem to understand this as a society, but those governments able to move quickly are more apt to make bad decisions.  Since government is composed of humans, it has the same tendencies which humans have.  One of those tendencies is that our first, quick answer, on complex questions is usually wrong.

Which is perfectly ok – when only become successful, through our failures.  Due to the government’s power however, even short term failures can result in very long term negative consequences.

Therefore, we have a government designed to be deliberative versus efficient.  One way through separation of powers – where each branch has the power to prevent the other to act.  This by itself prevents too much impetuousness.

The filibuster, is not specifically Constitutional, as the Constitution only provided that each body could set their own rules through a majority vote.   However, filibuster rules were adopted  in the House near the very founding of that body and then adopted by Senate some years later.

& for me – they seem to follow a very logical understanding of both governments and human tendencies.  Not only that, but the filibuster also reinforces the fact that we are not and never have been a direct democracy.  Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny and if, hypothetically, lots of Senators or Congressmen wish to take away my rights, I’ll be grateful for just one to stand up and try to obstruct as much as possible.  If nothing else, draw attention to it and delay it long enough to get citizens engaged.

For me though – two times in my life the government has supposedly “shut down” & I was always happy.  The things they said would happen, mass chaos because no social security checks or military pay (I was in the military during one shut down) never happened.   The only thing I was sure of, was the government wasn’t making more laws and overall that’s likely to be a good thing.