Reply #59: True, Republicans would pass *some* more bad measures with 51, than 60.

[burning rain]

But I'm as sure as can be that the dangers of that are oft overstated. A lot of people have fearful visions of 51 Republicans voting to privatize Social Security, outlaw all abortions, or abolish civil rights laws. But the fact is, government programs properly called socialistic--like Social Security and Medicare--are wildly popular, and congressional Republicans were so afraid of annihilation at the polls that they wouldn't even bring up George W. Bush's Social Security schemes for a vote when they had the majority. Likewise, Republicans have feared to take broad stabs at abortion via legislation, and as for civil rights, the filibuster was always a hindrance rather than a help--a major reason why no civil rights legislation, not even the modest decency of an anti-lynching law, could pass Congress between Reconstruction and Eisenhower's second term. Setting up supermajority requirements for passing legislation seems to be rooted in a gloomy view of Americans as hidebound reactionaries who must kept from getting the legislation we want. I do of course see a place for restraining illiberal popular whims and upholding basic rights even where a majority are against, but think that's best confined to the independent judiciary, rather than proliferating hindrances to majority rule throughout the legislative branch as well, which necessarily leads to voter apathy and cynicism as their--our--desire for change is thwarted again and again. Cynicism, meanwhile, almost always redounds to the benefit of conservatives. It feeds the conservative line that government can not do anything good. It is not a coincidence that one of the cagier and nastier right-wingers, Paul Weyrich, insisted that he didn't want more Americans to vote. Moving to simple majority rule in the Senate would naturally lead to more involved and engaged citizenry, as people saw that government actually can do (more) things.

I also regret to see some DUers hoping to see Brown nose Coakley. However frustrated we may be, a Brown win would only lessen the potential for progressive change. I wouldn't ask any lefty to be thrilled with the legislation we've been getting, but it does seem reasonable to ask people to vote their own better interests, which are surely better served by elected Coakley rather than Brown. The issue in the Massachusetts Senate race ought to be the public interest and not some desire to kick the president and Senate leadership in the tush at the expense of harming our own interests. But there's a bigger picture. I doubt DUers will swing the Massachusetts Senate election. No doubt there's a much larger chunk of voters without a firm ideological commitment, to whom Democrats can appeal on the basis of basically liberal, public-minded economic policies, but we've been frittering away that advantage with, for instance, the PhRMA deal, by ditching the public option, and with Nelson's smelly Medicaid sweetheart deal for Nebraska.

I'm a big fan of Hubert Humphrey too, but I don't see how he would have been the logical Democratic nominee in 1972, having lost in 1968, with the Democratic Party's peace camp only haven gotten stronger in the interim, to the disadvantage of relatively hawkish Cold War liberals like him and Muskie. I think 1972 was no-win year for us in any case. I have to wonder whether the heartbreakingly close election of 1968 would have turned out differently, had Johnson called for a bombing halt and peace talks earlier than he did--when he did, peace voters largely came back to the Humphrey/Muskie ticket, but not enough.