SIO278: The Filibuster is F***ing Stupid

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:29 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Serious Inquiries Only, this is episode 278, and I am Thomas, here by myself because I have some political opinions to share. Also, I am amazed at the number of questions and emails and comments and all that I've gotten lately, I'm gonna try to get to some of those too because they're so good and it's so fun to interact with you folks, but it's amazing how much it is and I keep wanting to catch up, and so I'll do a big episode and catch up and then I'll be behind again and, you know, in a few days, uh, it's crazy, but anyway, I gotta talk to you about this filibuster. It really, I know this is kind of probably an Opening Arguments-esque topic, and I think we've done stuff on the filibbuster, but I'm not going to try to do, I'm going to be a lawyer and explain that all every all the, I could sooner explain, probably better, the rules of Magic the Gathering than I could the Senate rules.

0:01:25 Thomas: Like, I started to do the research into the filibuster, and the Senate Rules are ridiculously complex, and I'm not a lawyer, and it's hard to wrap my mind around them, but I can give you the broad strokes of where we are. There are just so many misconceptions about the filibuster. It's driving me nuts, especially at a time when it is so incredibly important to get stuff done. So let me let me try to summarize where where we're coming from here, where or where where we are, I guess, and where I'm coming from, because Ezra Klein, who moved to The New York Times somewhat recently, he wrote an opinion column called How the Democrats Could Lose in 2022 and Deserve It. And it's a very good article. I really love Ezra Klein.

0:02:10 Thomas: And and actually quite a lot of what I'm going to say today is informed by by stuff he's written or podcasts he's done. Not all of it, but he's definitely a great source. I recommend him. And he points out in that column that we are in huge trouble as Democrats in 2022. We are at risk. I know, look, the map is good for the Senate in 2022, but if you do your simple math, the map is the same every six years. So in six-year increments, the Senate map is the same as it was six years ago. And you'll recall that we did not win the Senate in 2016. There's a lot going on there. You know, it's a question of Trump voters showing up. It's a question of all that stuff.

0:02:55 Thomas: But I think it's reasonable to be worried when Hillary did drive record turnout at that time, records shattered by Biden and Trump, by the way, 2020. And still, we didn't win the senate. And the map is identical. I keep trying to explain stuff, and then I go back on a thing. I have to find the limit of where I have to hope that you guys are with me. And maybe I'm underestimating you or maybe I'm overestimating. I never sure which, you know, and I'll hear from people from time to time. It's kind of a challenge of doing a show like this as I kind of highlighted on the GameStop one. But anyway, that piece talked about how we need to Democrats need to get stuff passed and run on it. Obama was a president for a different time. I love Obama in in so many ways.

0:03:41 Thomas: But he really tried, and you know, there's undoubtedly a racial component to it in that he probably felt pressures to be a certain way due to being the first Black president and to try to exceed expectations in certain ways. And one of those was, he had a philosophy of don't spike the football. Never, you know, celebrate accomplishments, because, you know, and I love the nobility of that. Like, I do love that as a principle if we lived in a different time, but we don't live in that time anymore. And not only do we not live in that time, we live in fundamentally the opposite time. There are certain things that Trump did that make sense in terms of how to do politics in the modern era.

0:04:27 Thomas: It doesn't mean I supported his policies, but there are certain ways he campaigned the reason he was so successful. A lot of the reasons, you know, there are a ton of reasons, of course, but one of the reasons was he, he campaigned in a way that worked in this day and age. And I think we are at a day and age. I hope that Biden has learned this lesson in which if you accomplish something like the name, his Trump's name going on the checks, it was a stupid thing. And I still think that's stupid, but the principle behind it is something that I think we are forced to contend with. With now. Democrats had a, you know, there, there is a, I think this was brought up. I can't remember where it was brought Up, but there was a, there was A policy, something Democrats passed in 2008 or nine, I guess, after the Senate would have been seated that gave money back to workers in the form of tax credit.

0:05:16 Thomas: And it like spread it out so much that I think This was in the Ezra Klein podcast. It spread it out so much That you didn't even notice you got it, you You know, so like it was economists told told people it was the better way to go. Like it had it was a better wonk solution to a problem, you know, but nobody knew it happened. And unfortunately, we live in a day and age where we cannot and this breaks my heart, but we cannot just enact policy that would have the best outcome. Like, honest to God, it's as simple as that. We can't just talk to whether it's scientists, whether it's economists, whether whoever it it is, experts see what they think would be like, here's the best way to accomplish a thing, whether it's health care, whether it's, you know, tax reform, whatever it is. And then just do that.

0:06:01 Thomas: It doesn't work anymore. If it ever did, it doesn't work. You like, and this is a great example. You have to, I mean, we still want to try to do that all we can, but what we have to do, the simple fact is the systemic inequality in our system, the fact that Biden can win by 8 million votes, which is more than the population of many countries, and still only really have won the election by 40,000 votes, as I highlighted the other week. That's the uphill climb we face. The fact that Biden can get that record number of votes and we lose seats in the House due to gerrymandering.

Uh, the senators, by the way, Democratic senators represent 40 million more Americans than Republican senators, based on the simple math of the states, and and all that. So 40 million, and we, and it's 50-50, that's in a 50-50 tie in the Senate, Democrats are elected by 40 million more Americans. I mean, it's not sustainable. It's not just, it's horrible. There's, you know, we need to find a way to fix this. Unfortunately, our Constitution is very flawed in the same way, you know, whether it's the Electoral College or the Senate.

It fundamentally favors small red states and gives them an outsized voice, which is again a lot of what we're going to talk about with the filibuster today. These are the systemic problems in the Constitution that the Constitution did not anticipate or give a good remedy for. The remedy for it is, oh, pass an amendment.

0:07:39 Thomas: You know what you need to do to pass an amendment, cover an even bigger hurdle, get over like a two times bigger hurdle than you would have had to, to even get elected in the first place. So functionally speaking, the Constitution offers us no remedy. The remedy is get people who are given unfair powers and get them to renounce their power voluntarily. It's not going to happen, it's not going to happen. Functionally speaking, it's it's a broken system and we're kind of stuck, and I don't know, I mean, people talk about that for the Electoral College, they talk about the interstate compact to do that, you know, like, I maybe we can achieve that, I kind of don't think so, and it's possible we will, and if we do, that might settle that particular problem, but that still doesn't fix the Senate, which is just as bad, still doesn't fix gerrymandering, that kind of thing, which the court has been ruined.

0:08:30 Thomas: So there's... there's a lot of hurdles to clear. What we have to do, because we're on such a tightrope, what Democrats have to do, we have two short years, Democrats, to do this. It's going to be impossible. It's going to be so hard. What we have to do is pass policy and brag about it. Like, honestly, honest to God, that's the part that Trump got right. We need to pass two thousand dollar checks or whatever. Biden should be getting rid of student loan debt right now. Do things like that and throw a fucking parade about it, it's not, it's the opposite of what Obama would have done, it's not dignified, it's, you know, like I, I see why Obama governed the way he did, and it was super dignified and fantastic, except we lost power because of it in part, there's a lot going on there, but that's definitely part of it, and I think that we have to learn that lesson, we have do, obviously not to the degree that Trump did, we can find a good, you know, Democrat version, version of it that's a little more sophisticated.

0:09:27 Thomas: But we have to run. This is one of the reasons Bernie is so successful. He's able to distill his talking points down to very easy to grasp things that and he sticks to that message. And he's very successful because of that. We need to take a page out of that book. We need to pass things like the checks, like the, you know, whatever COVID relief, whatever we do, whatever Democrats do. Step one is they have to to do something. They have to do something. It has to be big. And I think that most Democrats know that. And then here's, oh my god, I know I'm spinning off because there's so much I want to say. I already anticipate something goes wrong. Either we don't pass something or something gets fundamentally ruined by the process of getting enough votes to pass it, whatever it might be. And then we'll hear all the negativity of, oh, Democrats failed, Democrats failed.

0:10:17 Thomas: It's so hard because I just wish we would replace the name, like, instead of saying Democrats fail, because, you know, AOC is a Democrat, and every time people talk about Democrats sucking, or they're Republicans or whatever, you're also talking about AOC, then you might think, well, that, I don't mean her, you know, that kind of thing, fine, but like, let's be more specific. If we don't get something passed, we'll have to track down why, which may be the filibuster, which I'm going to get to, and if the filibuster doesn't get gotten, it won't be, quote-unquote, the Democrats' fault. It'll be probably Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema or somebody. It will be like a Democrat's fault, or two. And what's so frustrating is with margins this razor thin, when there's a failure, all of the party is going to get blamed for what one or two people did.

0:11:13 Thomas: It. And it will have not have mattered what any of the other members of the party did. If at the end of the day, Manchin and Sinema, or one of them or both of them, decides they don't want to do something, there's nothing the rest of the party can do. The rest of the party could be all Bernie Sanderses. It could be 100% Bernie Sanders and AOCs. It could be the most progressive, wants to get stuff done, whatever your version of the best Democrat is, 48 of them in the Senate, if we're just talking about the Senate, could be exactly that, per, they could be the greatest Democrat in the history of time, it won't matter, and it'll sound really stupid to my ears to say, well, Democrats are just, they're just the worst, they're the same, they're blah blah blah. Well, no, like, one of them stopped it, and the reason, as I went over last time when I talked about Joe Manchin.

0:12:05 Thomas: Yes, there will be blame on Joe Manchin if indeed he does do this. But also the blame is why was Joe Manchin the deciding vote? And that's where we need to look at. Because as I said last, I'm not going to recover that. Joe Manchin is, while we do need to pressure him as much as possible, as I've said, if we're looking for how to get out of this mess in the future, electorally, Joe Manchin is not the problem. If you primary Joe Manchin, you'll get a Republican in that seat. That's the thing. Like, if you think of it in terms of who, if, if you had the ability right now to just get rid of a democratic Senator and like, you know, then presumably there'd be another election to replace them. Like that's, that's how we should think. If you had to do that, Joe Manchin would be about the last person you'd want to do it with.

0:12:53 Thomas: Like he might be literally the last one. Kyrsten Sinema might be the first one. She might be the first Senator that you would want. Okay. Here's top of the list. Kirsten Sinema. If you could just retire her or somebody like, you know, there's going to be somebody else who's close, but she's, by all metrics, she's the most right wing of the Democrats based on her state.

0:13:15 Thomas: If you got, again, like I said, if you had a button you could push that manually retired Joe Manchin, you would get a Republican in that seat. And we would be now down 49 to 51 in the Senate. If you could push a button and retire, you know, Kyrsten Sinema, we would make progress. That's how I choose to think about it. You know, and I hope I've made that point by now. But anyway, so we're on a razor, razor-thin margin in order to get anything done. God, it's so dumb. I know we probably all know, know all this, but I got to kind of take us through it. Here's what's so frustrating about the filibuster. The filibuster is not how the fucking founding fathers made it. There are people talking now, like serious people talking as though we need to preserve the filibuster because it's, you know, either they're making an originalist appeal or they're saying it's how the system was drawn or the founding fathers or the, it's a blah, blah, bla, blah.

0:14:13 Thomas: All that is bullshit. I'm sure most of you know this in case you don't, the filibuster was created by accident. It is an accident that people did, that senators didn't even realize was there for like 50 years. It was an accident. It was not intended. The Constitution says simple majority. It also has two thirds for some certain things like you need two thirds for, you know, conviction. You know, there's a couple of things that outlines two thirds. Everything else that's implied a simple majority, that's how the founding fathers made it. And then what happened? And again, I'm not an expert. I can just read Wikipedia to you. What happened was, and you know who we have to blame for the filibuster?

0:14:59 Thomas: Aaron Burr. We have Aaron Burr to blame. It says right here, accidental creation of the filibuster. In 1789, the Senate adopted rules allowing senators to move the previous question, which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. But Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous his question motion was redundant and it had only been exercised once in the preceding four years and should be eliminated, which was done in 1806 after he left office. Okay, so I guess we can also blame whoever actually did that. And so they did that and because it created, hold on, let me finish this paragraph. Because it created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, filibusters became theoretically possible, but nobody even, they didn't realize that like it was entirely an accident.

0:15:51 Thomas: This is, so if you hear anybody, and there's more, by the way, there's a lot more, but if you hear anybody talking as though the filibuster is some like fundamental part of our system that on the checks and balances, the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, if anyone is talking like that, they're full of shit. It was an accident, it wasn't meant to be there, but it gets worse, because, like, for like, and again, I'm sorry if you already know this, but it is, it's worth going through, because the filibuster was completely an accident, and then if you ever have been thinking to yourself, well, I saw that movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and that had a super interesting plot point, you know, though actually the whole, not just a plot point, the basically the entire movie, it's been a number of years since I've seen it, but but the whole point is he has to stand up there and talk the whole time.

0:16:43 Thomas: That doesn't exist anymore. You don't even have to do that. Now, sometimes senators will do that for show, like that you can still do that, like you can do that to kind of make a point. I think, and again, the Senate rules are more complicated than, you know, like Magic the Gathering meets, I don't know what, like the ultimate rules lawyering. They are so complex. I think there are certain times when maybe that kind of filibuster could still come into play. But anyway, long story short, it doesn't exist. I won't go through all the history because, again, I'm not an expert. But to summarize the broad strokes, they did something in the 70s or the 60s to create a two-track system so that there wasn't just one set of business going on.

0:17:29 Thomas: There could be like another, so you could have different business during the day, like different times of the day. And under that two track system, that made it so like when you were filibustering, you didn't have to get up and announce that you were filibustering, you know, and the thought. So what happened was, and I don't know if it was the intended effect, I think this was another accident that kind of made it such that you could filibuster without drawing much attention to it because the Senate could move on to other business during another part of the the day. It used to be that they had to, just they were stuck on one thing. And then if you were filibustering, you had to, Mr. Smith goes to Washington, you had to go up there and it required like two thirds vote. That's changed, by the way. They're, there. First it was like two thirds, then it was a super majority of like voting members.

0:18:18 Thomas: And they changed it to an absolute number of all senators. And that's where we got to the 60-vote mark that we're at today, which actually had another kind of accidental downside, and that made it so that you didn't even have to have everybody, like if there was a minority party that wanted to filibuster, they used to have to all be there, and now they don't even have all be there, so we've gone from this, wasn't even part of the system, it's not in the Constitution, it's a Senate rule issue that was accidentally created, that is the top line about the filibustering. And we went from that to, okay, okay, well, we've modified it. And then there's the kind of Mr. Smith goes to Washington. There's a number of changes I'm glossing over, by the way. But like, then you had to actually go up and, you know, talk the whole time.

0:19:07 Thomas: And that's an interesting thing. And like, maybe you can make an argument that that's compelling or useful in some way. You don't even have to do that. It is now just an assumed filibuster. Every single thing is now an assumed filibuster, so there's not even any risk. That was a big part of why, and you can actually track, they got charts and graphs showing how little has passed. So now nothing passes. This is not how the system was meant to do, to go. And it gets even stupider. I'm sure you've heard talk about budget reconciliation. And I'm sure you've, you've heard by now that that's like the one time that Congress can pass anything. And here's the reason, it's because there are certain things in the Senate rules that have, have a manual deadline, because any other business has an assumed, like an infinite deadline.

0:19:56 Thomas: And so the trick is that if you can never bring cloture or whatever, if you can never stop the debate, that's what the filibuster is, then you never vote on it. And so that's, and you know, as I've kind of tracked through, that is where this is all covered. Well, if there's anything that has a manual guideline, then this doesn't work. And that's why only a simple majority is required for budget reconciliation. It kind of makes sense that budget reconciliation would be something with a manual deadline, like you just have to get it done. And there's a couple other obscure things that are like that. But the budget reconciliation has become the focus and that's where everything gets passed. Nobody meant the system to work this way. It's so just staggering that Kristen Sinema is saying, by the way, I had to look up the quotes.

0:20:44 Thomas: She says she's not open to it. Actually, I think this stems from a Washington Post article that even had a correction. I'm going to read the correction first. Here's the Washington Post correction at the bottom of this article. Correction, an earlier version of this article mistakenly reported that Kyrsten Sinema had suggested she might be willing to eliminate the filibuster. A spokeswoman for Sinema said the senator is firmly opposed to doing so and is not open to changing her mind.

It's even worse than like Joe Manchin, who said, I don't want to do that, Joe Manchin does, is against eliminating the filibuster, but you get the sense that like he could change his mind, he's kind of leaving, this is just me speculating, it feels more like he's leaving it possibly open, but you know, doesn't want too, in his mind, there's going to be some actual bipartisan thing that'll pass, which is fucking stupid, it's not going to happen. I mean, maybe there would be, but it would be terrible. And And it wouldn't be good for anybody. But anyway, that might be what's going on in his mind. I could not tell you what is going on in Kyrsten Sinema's mind.

Against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating. Why do you even say that? What is the point of that? Nobody is like their one issue voter, and that issue is this accidental fucking stupid thing in our system that is terrible and does nothing good. That's my one issue, don't get rid of the filibuster. Something that shouldn't exist, literally was an accident by Aaron Burr that no one realized for like 50 years.

0:22:20 Thomas: And then they're like, oh shit, actually, there's a weird rule that got repealed. So now that we can't, it was like, come on, who cares about that? It's a joke that should not exist. And Kyrsten Sinema is proactively talking about she's not open and changing her mind about it. It's unbelievable. So the point of this show is I came up with a couple ideas when I was going through all this. I have a couple of ideas for Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin and any other Democrat. Those are the two I have seen that have been the most outspoken about this. I'm not sure what the actual numbers. I can't find a good rundown if anybody's tracking that. If you have that, let me know or if you know any paper or anything. I found some outdated stuff. I didn't find anything current. But anyway, Manchin and Sinema are the two that I see, and I have some things I could do.

0:23:11 Thomas: I hope they're listening. I know they're not, but maybe this will trickle out into the world. But to sum up where we are, I know that was a little convoluted. As usual, I have so many things I want to say, and it's stuck in that inception where I'm going back and trying to explain my thoughts on stuff. But just to summarize the top line thing, we have to pass big things in these two years or we're dead as Democrats.

Now, it's a little weird because Joe Manchin's incentives are a little different. But even Joe Manchin, I think, would be more electorally successful if he had legislation to run on than not. This is where it gets complicated. But for every Democrat not named Joe Manchin, you know, every incentive is going to be pass stuff, keep the base excited, actually run on your victories, histories and even still, I personally, my negatron view is that we are going to lose in 2022. I think we're going to lose the Senate and I hope not the house, but like maybe even the house. Like honestly, that's what, that if you just in my heart of hearts, that is what I think, but I want to do everything humanly possible to avoid that. If you are the democratic party and you would like to avoid, that you have to pass stuff.

In order to pass stuff, you have to get around this filibuster or that, well, not, or one of the ways of getting around it is passing stuff in the budget reconciliation. And that, you know, who knows that could be enough. Like if you really go hard at that and use it and stretch it in ways, you Know, like maybe that'll be enough to run on.

0:24:52 Thomas: You know, I got, it could be if we, if you, if there's arguments that you could put the minimum wage, $15 minimum wage in there. It's, it's again, it's so fucking stupid. But this is not how anything should be done. There's no, if you woke up, if you dug up all the founding fathers' bodies, there would be, and brought them to life via electricity like in Frankenstein or something, there'd be unanimous consent among them that this is fucking bullshit and not how Anything Should Work. There's No Way. This is not How Anyone Intended It. So, originalists shouldn't want it like this and Democrats shouldn't wanna like this. There is nobody who should want it this. This. And by the way, I haven't kept up with that libertarian guy who has the history podcast, Dan Carlin. But one of the things when I used to listen to him that he, actually, I'm not sure if I'm still subscribed or if he just doesn't do podcasts anymore.

0:25:42 Thomas: I might still be subscribed. Either way, one of things he would go off about, and one of those things that's a genuine concern is executive power. Executive power is, you know, it's gotten bigger and bigger and bigger and executive power. If maybe you're that brand of person where you hate that there's too much executive power, you should also want the filibuster to be eliminated. The reason there's so much executive overreach is because nothing happens. The Senate is fundamentally broken. And when things are fundamentally broken, you got to take any route you can to possibly get stuff done. And that includes getting more and more bold with executive orders and finding ways for that to work. So if we got rid of this filibuster, I absolutely believe that there would be less executive overreach than there otherwise would be.

0:26:33 Thomas: Personally, I don't care that much about it because I want outcomes. I don't if this is a worthwhile tangent. I just want good outcomes. But it' worth saying that if all we can do is executive orders, even if that got us everything, that comes with the downside of the next president can just undo do it. So, like, yeah, I don't necessarily care whether Congress, you know, the Democratic Congress or a Democratic president is able to do certain things. Like, just by, in and of itself, as a, like conceptually, I do not care that much about it, because either way you needed to be elected by the people and Democrats have a vast majority. No, I should not say vast majority, they have a very healthy popular vote majority. And so, I really do not care, but, you You know, I think if you are somebody who cares about executive overreach, getting rid of the filibuster is absolutely a big step toward paring back executive power a little bit.

0:27:30 Thomas: Because then the Senate could actually function and it wouldn't just delegate everything or, you know, or even not delegate stuff and just have the president try to take it over, like with DACA and with the parents of DACA thing that failed in the court. Oh, I want to make another quick point. This was something I saw on Twitter quickly and then forgot about and then remembered. Now I don't know who said it, but it was a really good point. So apologies, whoever said this. Might have been Jamil Bowie. I don't know. Somebody smart said this and it hadn't necessarily occurred to me. You know those 10 Republicans who proposed the $600 billion version of the stimulus thingy? It' really interesting that that counterproposal, which is nonsense and nobody should give a shit about it and ignore it.

0:28:15 Thomas: But what's interesting about it is there is no alternative theory of how to do anything in it. There's a really interesting point that I hadn't quite, I hadn't quite thought of in this way. All it is, is everything the Democrats want to do, but just reduce the value by a third. And I think that's very noteworthy. Like it used to be that Republicans would at least come up with alternate theories of stuff. And you could like like hypothetically, Republicans could be campaigning on, hey, we've got an awesome package here. Like I'm ignoring all the awesome package joke. We've got a big, beautiful package of stimulus and they could they could campaign on a large amount, but they could say, hey.

0:29:02 Thomas: We're Republicans. Here's our theory of how things should work. Let's target this more or let's, you know, maybe I wouldn't agree with it, but I'm just saying they could actually have a different theory. Hey, let's send this money to actually do businesses, you know, and then they'll stay open and then they'll, you know, employ people, whatever, like some other bullshit thing and some different thing. But they don't have that because they have no actual policy. Republicans have nothing. They haven't had anything for 12 years. This goes back to when they campaigned against Obamacare for a million straight consecutive years. And then when they had control of all three branches of government could not come up with a single proposal for what to do. Otherwise, all they came up with was let's get rid of the thing that is actually helping a bunch of people. They don't have policy.

0:29:49 Thomas: And I thought that's interesting. All they're saying is, look, let's do you guys are right about they're essentially admitting like Democrats are the ones who have the ideas for how to do anything. Thing, but let's just reduce the dollar amount arbitrarily for no fucking reason. Cause we're the party of like, just spend less money. So things suck. That's like, that's really all it is. There's no actual theory in it of like Oh, let's target the money this way. Let's do this thing. Let's means test this more or whatever. There isn't even that it's really interesting point. So anyway, here's, I have a couple scenarios for how Sinema and Joe Manchin could go about this. One, there's a straight up flip flop. And like, that's kind of where I thought it was going with Joe Manchin. Make your first project. It sounds like, I guess that'll be the $1.9 trillion COVID thing, but I don't know if that counts.

0:30:39 Thomas: Cause that's, if that's budget reconciliation, then you've already sidestepped the filibuster. So it's not entirely clear where they're doing, but like, let's say it's either that, or it's like a voting rights act, pick Pick something that is incredibly popular, no-brainer, and let it, you know, get filibustered. Let it get filibustered by the right, and then you get to come do your flip-flop. And this is easy as can be. I don't know why Sinema didn't leave this open. Why? It makes no sense. Even from any perspective, it makes no sense. Why would you not just say, well, I don't want to change the filibuster. You know, as of right now, just say this. As of now, I don't think we need to eliminate the filibuster, I want to work in a bipartisan fashion to create some davity boo, blah, blah. And then, you know, you try to work in a bipartisan fashion to create some babbity boo blah, and then it doesn't work.

0:31:31 Thomas: And you just go out and say, wow, this is, I'm surprised you can act surprised too. Whoa. Can't believe it. I thought we were going to work together, reach across the aisle and, uh, and pass some great stuff. And I'm just, I'm the surprise is all you Republicans are just putting their head in the sand. They want us to a fail. They're not going to let us pass anything. I guess we got to remove that filibuster. Damn nuts. I really didn't want to do that. Why didn't that's easy. There's no reason for cinema not to have done that. It's why I'm so outraged about this. I don't understand what she's doing and it's infuriating. Why would you say against eliminating the filibuster and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating this? Unbelievable. Why Would You Say That? What? There's somebody voting.

0:32:17 Thomas: Does she think there's a constituent out, some constituency out there, for like, "Yeah, we're really glad she's not even open to changing her mind," by the way, about anything, but like about a fucking stupid, shitty thing that's preventing any legislation from being passed. Anyway, so that's option one, is just a flip-flop, which I felt, I think, was maybe where Manchin would have been leaning, but but Sinema hasn't left that open. Okay, option two is a Bernie Sanders plan, which actually I think is really good. So Bernie Sanders, uh, among other things, he's proposed a workaround, which is this, and I know it gets back into these fucking Senate rules that are so dumb. The whole trick with the nuclear option is you can propose an interpretation of the rule, and then the parliamentarian or whatever says, "Well, here's the rule."

0:33:13 Thomas: And then you can say, we don't agree. And that's a simple vote. Roughly speaking, that's the nuclear option that we did with the Senate. Sorry, in the Senate with the Supreme Court nomination. That's what the Republicans did with Supreme Court. Democrats first did with circuit court court appointments in like 2013 or something where you appeal to the rules lawyer and then you say, well, I don't agree with that. Let's do a quick vote to see who agrees with me. And then that's a simple majority. And so that sidesteps everything, blah, blah. That's how you would get rid of the filibuster because to get rid of the filibuster should require 60 votes or whatever, or is it 66, whatever it is, it should require that many votes in and of itself, you know, Like because removing the filibuster could be filibustered, but because of this nuclear option rules thingy, you just appeal to the rules person and then you do that. So that's the trick, essentially how it works.

0:34:10 Thomas: And Bernie's idea, which I think is a pretty good one, and I didn't really get this at first because I was a little annoyed that he early on, he wasn't committing to eliminating the filibuster. I don't know why. It might've just been, you know, it might've been a way to sidestep the political perceived received political hit you take, which I don't, I still don't understand. By the way, I should have said this at the outset. Data for Progress released some polls a while back. Voters support eliminating the filibuster. They just do. I mean, like Republicans obviously don't now as much. First off, if you just ask about repealing the filibuster, eliminating the filibuster, you get one set of answers that's, you know, Democrats support it, but as a nation, we don't quite support it. But if you ask like, OK, should we pass a certain bill like a voting rights bill and ignore the filibuster, you know, you just word it a different way that that focuses more on the legislation than actually the numbers switch.

0:35:10 Thomas: So like voters don't actually just care about the filibuster in and of itself. They just don't. It all depends on how you ask the question. They actually care about stuff getting done more so than they care about preserving a filibuster. So Bernie's plan, the way I understand it is pass stuff that's not like use use reconciliation to pass Medicare for all. And then when the when the parliamentarian says like, hey, that's not a budget related thing, because that's the whole trick, right? You can pass budget like money related stuff in the Budget Reconciliation Act. You can actually tie totally not money money-related stuff, like just budgetary stuff to that, using the same trick. So using this nuclear option thing, Bernie could say, yep, Medicare for all, that's part of the budgetary whatever.

0:35:59 Thomas: And then the parliamentarian who, you know, I don't know who this person is, and I prefer not to know. I actually don't want to look it up. I can imagine, just use my imagination, just some total no fun person who's like, hey, actually the letter of the law says, and then you do the same thing. And you say, well, what do you all think? Senators, do you think that this is a budget thing? And then they can say, yep, that's a budget thing. And that's actually a way that you could get around the filibuster effectively, in effect, get around the Filibuster. And that would still preserve Kyrsten Sinema's promise to not eliminate the Filribuster. So that could be solution one, the Bernie Sanders method of just do the nuclear option for everything. And essentially, it's the one weird trick of appealing to the parliamentarian thingy and And just just do that for everything.

0:36:47 Thomas: So that's that's an option. Still don't know why that makes any more political sense to Kyrsten Sinema, but who knows? Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn't. Whatever. Here's another option. I again, I don't know how much this appeals to people or to Kyrsten Sinema in general, but you could just eliminate it on a case by case basis. Couldn't you? I mean, is there anything stopping the Senate from saying we sidestep it for this one vote? And then we put it back, you know, that could be a way to alleviate Kyrsten Sinema's mysterious, nebulous concerns about eliminating this. I don't think that's a great option, but I think it exists, right? Couldn't you conceivably say like, okay, we're just doing it this once because we have to, because it's such a popular bill.

0:37:35 Thomas: And then that kind of sidesteps the fact that she had to lie about eliminating it. That option kind of sucks, but I just thought I'd bring it up. I got, I got one, though. Here's what I think could be an interesting option. This might have some appeal. Kyrsten Sinema, if you're listening, why not reframe it as restoring the filibuster, like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington style? So, get rid of, just eliminate the standing filibuster part.

That could be a way that Sinema could not have to even eat her words. She could say, "All right, I, I am all for the filibuster because of whatever the fuck reasons I have, no, I don't understand it, but let's," you know, if I'm pretending to be her, "yep, I don't want to uproot the whole system and blah blah blah," but the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington movie doesn't even make sense anymore, that's not even how it works anymore, I think we should restore it to that. So, effectively, restore the filibuster to what it used to be and actually make senators stand up there and talk the whole time.

And then if Ted fucking Cruz wants to do a little thing where he reads Green Eggs and Ham theatrically for no reason, he can do that for a while and then he'll run out of steam or the sun will come out and he'll have to go back into his coffin or whatever. He'll eventually have to step down.

Also, so what this also does is make it more of an act of commission rather than omission, which is, I kind of highlighted this earlier, it was a real downside that now there's an assumed filibuster.

0:39:13 Thomas: So there's no, it puts all the onus the other way. It puts the onus on Democrats or whoever wants to pass something to have 60 votes rather than, all right, we have the simple majority, which is how the fucking constitution is written. We have it and you need to do something thing to stop it. That's how it should be. And then you, you know, somebody would filibust and like make a big speech. It'd be a big dramatic thing, but they would have to do that. Like, like what's his name did with the Civil Rights Act, for like the longest filibuster ever, was because black people might get a handful of rights. And of course, you know, certain white people in the South couldn't have that. So that was like the largest filibuster ever, I think, was that one, but, like, make that visible. And then you haven't gotten rid of the filibuster, or Kyrsten Sinema, you haven't gotten rid of it.

0:40:00 Thomas: It's still there. You still have the Mr. Smith goes to Washington, but then you do that and then you just pass the thing because that's how it should fucking work. Unbelievable. So those are my strategies. The way this system works is stupid. There's nobody in the world. If you asked an average American how things should work, or if you asked every founding father, or if he asked fucking anyone, no one should say it should work like this. Here's what should happen. Because of a quirk of history and total accident, incident, the budget reconciliation is the one time in the year. You can only do that once a year, by the way. That's why there's no, you can't just keep doing that over and over. There's only one of them. And so that's why it only works this way. Squeeze everything into that, that you can, that'll be loosely related to the budget and pass stuff that way. No one thinks that's how the Senate should work.

0:40:46 Thomas: It's ridiculous. And so I guess the point of all this is, there, there you go, Kirsten Sinema. How about you? This'll, this'll make it so you don't have to be a liar. Restore this filibuster to the thirties. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington style or something. And then you haven't eliminated it. Cool. We've got, we're all happy. Everybody's happy. That fine. But we have to get stuff done. Democrats have to get stuff done in this two years to have any chance of winning in 2022. And if we lose in 2022, we go back to being fucked. I don't see how this sustains itself, it's such an uphill climb for Democrats to beat Republicans, it really is, it's so astronomical.

0:41:31 Thomas: And feeling like our vote doesn't matter because nothing happens is the worst thing you can do to voters, and that will make some number of voters stay at home. Now, I'll be out here trying to get everybody to vote because we just have to, there's nothing else we can do. Like, we have to just vote for Democrats. And by the way, we wouldn't be in this position if we had a few more Democratic senators. Imagine if Sinema and Manchin were like the 53rd and 4th votes or something. Wouldn't matter what they said. They could, oh, Sinema could be, "I'm all about the filibuster. I worship at the altar of the fucking filibuster every night," for God knows why. Don't understand why it's such a cool thing for her. Doesn't make any sense.

0:42:16 Thomas: Anyway, she could, she could keep doing that all she wanted, no one would care, wouldn't matter. So that's what, electing more Democrats is the solution. It's so frustrating that that's what it is, but I understand the frustration and I understand how many people out there are just going to sit there and think, "Well, my vote didn't matter because nothing changed. I voted in Democrats, they controlled two chambers," you know, the two houses of chambers or whatever, "and they control the presidency and nothing happened." And it won't be, quote unquote, Democrats' fault. It'll be Cinemas and Mansions fault, but it'll also be because we didn't have plus one or two extra Democrats. That's another way we get around it. It doesn't, when we elect more Democrats, things get more progressive. Then you have more room for people like Bernie Sanders to write legislation.

0:43:07 Thomas: Seriously, even if you are like the most unabashed Bernie bro or something. The more Democrats we have in office, the more Bernie Sanders bills are going to be passed. If we have a 49-51 Senate, zero Bernie Sanders-sponsored bills are going to pass. If we have a 54-46, well, actually, there's a decent chance that some will get passed. Pretty good, actually. Pretty solid. At least he gets to work on them and they get to come to pass If we're 50-50, we're kind of all relying on that one last vote and we're basically that's our limit. That's the best we could do. And I just don't think we should be wasting our time being mad at Joe Manchin over it. What we have to do is win more seats. We have to. We have to win more Senate seats. I mean, I guess we don't have to winning more House seats.

0:43:54 Thomas: We got to win, however, simple majority, but you get the point. All right. Well, I'm going to leave it there. That is what I think Cinema should do. Restore the filibuster to its former glory. Do it. Come on. What a great idea that is. Don't you think? Make Mr. Smith Goes to Washington matter again, that's the way you should do it if you're listening, Senator Kirsten Cinema, and anybody else. All right, that's my show. Oh, I want to make a quick side note, this is a minor thing, but, uh, if you want to come watch Lindsey and I streaming on Twitch, I changed the, I got a name change, so it's twitch.tv/SRS NES instead of the Serious Pod, it's now, because Serious NES was the name of the channel, but the channel got taken and I messed up and blah blah blah, and it took me, it makes you wait two months to change it.

0:44:41 Thomas: Anyway, long story short, twitch.tv/SRS NES. SRS N-E-S. So SERS, SERS N-A-S-E. It's fun. It's short. So that's how you get there. And it's been so fun streaming with Lindsay and all that and all the different streams we've done. We talk about a lot of stuff on there. Maybe I can do some, I might have to do some overflow Q&A on there because there's just too many things and I never seem to get to them. So thank you so much for listening and I'll see you around.

0:45:19 Clip: Thank you so much for listening to Serious Inquiries Only. If you like the show, the absolute best thing you can do is support us at patreon.com/seriouspod. The second best thing you can do, is please share it on social media or by word of mouth. Speaking of social media, follow me on Twitter at Serious Pod. If would like to be Facebook friends, send me a request at facebook.com Thomas podcast. If not up for that level of intimacy, that's fine. Maybe you want to join the discussion at facebook.com/groups/SIO members. Thank you again for listening. We'll see you next time.