CORRECTION!

Dear reader(s),

Though it was unintentional, I must apologize for misleading you.  I recently claimed in a blog post that Mitch McConnell is the worst negotiator ever.  However, this implies that one day a worse negotiator may join the senate.  Instead, in the interest of accuracy, I should have said, "Mitch McConnell is the worst negotiator possible."  This week the senate minority leader actually lost a negotiation with himself.  As I've already noted, POTUS has been calling on congress to relinquish control over the debt ceiling.  McConnell (among others) has been dragging his feet over this, despite the fact that he proposed a bill in 2011 which would have had precisely this effect.  On Thursday, believing that senate democrats would oppose such a bill, McConnell called for a vote on the McConnell plan.  Harry Reid agreed to an immediate up or down (simple majority) vote.  McConnell was assuming that Reid would baulk, showing disunity among democrats and especially between congressional democrats and the White House.  When Reid agreed, McConnell had not choice but to filibuster his own bill--a bill for which he himself had called the vote.  The full story here, and here, and here, and here.  Video here.

The minority has no rights.

Hopefully the title of this post grabbed your attention.  It doesn't mean what you think, and I am going to try and explain as part of this post.  The outgoing 112th congress is the worst ever.  This is not hyperbole, it is actually measurable (though there is room to dispute the criteria).  In 1948, Harry Truman dubbed the 80th congress the "do nothing congress".

Nevertheless, the 80th congress passed more than 900 bills, while the 112th passed fewer than 200(even when Newt Gingrich was speaker and Bill Clinton president, congress managed to pass more than 300 bills).  Part of the problem with the current congress is their abuse of the filibuster.

Simply put (because it is a bit more complex that this) filibuster forces a 60/40 majority on certain bills, rather than the usual simple majority of 51/49.  The filibuster is often defended on the grounds that it defends the rights of the minority.  You must keep in mind that, in this instance, we are not speaking of visible minorities or ethnic minorities or religious minorities.  We are simply speaking of the party that won the fewest seats in the Senate.  One might argue that they are an ideological minority (Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or progressives), but that reasoning would be specious--these are accidental minorities.  Rather, these minorities are 'minor' precisely because they could not convince enough people to vote for them.  For better or for worse, it means that they have to compromise more than the majority party. This is not a prejudice, the way it would be were we speaking of a gender minority--it is simply an effect of the electoral process (there is always a winner and a loser).  So, the next time you hear the phrase "the rights of the minority" in the context of filibuster reform, know that this is just nincompoopery.

Here's some more reading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/13/13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/05/17-bills-that-likely-would-have-passed-the-senate-if-it-didnt-have-the-filibuster/