Baldwin is essential to filibuster reform

President Obama says that when it comes to congres-sional action on gun safety legislation, “This time must be different.”

No longer should partisan obstruction be allowed to block congressional action on sensible reforms that are favored by a great majority of Americans, the president says.

He’s right.

But Americans who want sensible gun laws need to recognize that to address mass violence, the Senate must address abuse of the filibuster as it begins the process of organizing itself for a new term.

The same goes for Americans who favor action on climate change and immigration reform and economic fairness and all the other issues that need to be addressed by the new Congress.

When Wisconsin voted decisively for Obama and Sen. Tammy Baldwin in November, it was a signal that voters want action.

But they will get it only if Baldwin, who was elected not to maintain a dysfunctional status quo but to change it, joins the courageous Democrats who are working to address the primary barrier to a functional Senate.

That barrier is the warped definition of the filibuster that now prevails in the chamber.

Historically intended to guarantee debate, the filibuster has been reinterpreted in recent years as a tool to pre-empt debate. This has created what Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., correctly characterize as a “culture of obstruction” in the Senate. Merkley, Warren and other Democratic senators have the power to rewrite the chamber’s rules at the opening of the new session, a power they must exercise now if this session is to be different from the last — which saw the highest number of filibusters in congressional history.

In the absence of the reforms proposed by Merkley and Warren, every evidence suggests that any debate about meaningful gun safety legislation would be pre-empted, any action obstructed.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and his caucus currently control just 45 of 100 seats in the chamber. They actually lost ground in the 2012 elections. But unless filibuster rules are reformed, they will be able to block action on the measures Obama and Vice President Biden have proposed in response to the shootings in Newtown, Conn., and other major components of the agenda that the majority of Americans endorsed with their votes for Obama and Senate candidates such as Baldwin.

The key phrase there is “block action.” In recent years, the filibuster has not in any meaningful sense been used to give the minority a chance to air its views, to encourage real debate, and where necessary to extend debate or to allow convincing arguments to be made. It has been used to block debate by preventing consideration of even popular proposals.

The filibuster, as it is currently defined, is not a tool for deliberation. It is a tool for preventing deliberation.

That’s a big deal when it comes to hot-button issues such as gun safety.

Action on gun safety legislation in a Senate controlled by the Democrats is essential if there is ever going to be action in a Republican-controlled House. It’s no secret that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and his caucus are under the sway of the National Rifle Association, which has become a prime source of messaging and funding for Republican campaigns as it has abandoned most pretenses of bipartisanship. Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., are not about to allow a vote on legislation the NRA has sworn to stop unless they are forced to do so.

It is true that Obama has a bully pulpit, and the remnants of a campaign apparatus, which can move public opinion. And public opinion is a factor when issues are brought to a vote; it is possible that a number of Northeastern Republicans (and some others from across the country) might — as Republicans in the New York legislature recently did — back moderate gun safety legislation. But for that to happen, the legislation has to be brought up for a House vote.

That’s far more likely to happen if the Senate has passed the legislation. It’s not just a matter of strengthening the popular argument for House action; there are practical tools — including the budget process and conference committees — for increasing the pressure on the House to act.

And this returns us to the filibuster.

For the Senate to act on gun safety, the essential first step is to end the abuse of the filibuster. That will require specific action to restore, in the words of Merkley and Warren, “a full talking filibuster.”

This is an essential understanding: Reform must restore the filibuster as it was historically understood, and as Americans know it from films such as Jimmy Stewart’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

“Other proposals out there don’t go far enough, and won’t change the culture of obstruction that paralyzes the Senate,” say Merkley, Warren and New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall.

A paralyzed Senate will not debate or vote on the gun safety legislation — or any of the other major legislation — that is required to ensure “this time is different.” 

Editor's Note: On Tuesday, Sen. Baldwin signed on as co-sponsor and said she would vote for the Merkley-Udall Resolution to reform the filibuster.