Back in the days of the Bush administration, when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, the Republican leadership grew frustrated that Senate Democrats had the temerity to use the filibuster block 4% of President Bush’s ideologically extremist judicial nominations. In response, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) proposed using what he dubbed the “nuclear option.” Under the so-called nuclear option, a motion could be carried with a simple majority that would end the long-standing practice of the Parliamentary maneuver known as the filibuster, at least in the case of judicial appointments.

In the end, Senate Democrats proved again that they were entirely free of either principles or scruples. Throughout the Bush years, Congressional Democrats caved to whatever the Republicans wanted, out of fear of being called “obstructionist.” They were so frightened of the threat of being called names that they allowed the Bush White House and the Republican Congress to do whatever they wanted. The Democrats failed to mount an effective opposition.

Fast forward to late 2009. The Republicans have assumed the “obstructionist” mantle and wear it with pride. Prominent Republicans including not just shout-down radio nut Rush Limbaugh but also Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and others have publicly stated that they want President Obama to fail in attaining any of his domestic priorities. The Republicans are doing their best to achieve this goal. They have been entirely uncompromising on the tiresomely long-running debate over the proposed health care reform legislation which, at the time of this writing, finally appears to have a chance of passing the Senate.

Unfortunately the bill that has emerged from the Senate bears little resemblance to the lofty goals of those who proposed it so long ago. A number of prominent progressives including Howard Dean have advocated for voting down this piece of legislation on the premise that as written it would do more harm than good. Due to the complexity of the issue I am presently fence-sitting myself, but I am inclined to agree with them in principle. The only good part of the legislation as it stands is the abolition of the pre-existing exclusion, whereby insurance companies refuse to sell coverage to individuals who they deem may actually require health care services. Ending the pre-existing exclusion is a commendable aim, but a better bill would have consisted of this single point and left the rest out. Without a government-backed public option, the rest of the bill as it presently stands amounts to a nearly trillion dollar subsidy for the private insurance industry. Serious questions remain as to whether federal subsidies for low-income families and individuals will be sufficient to cover the new mandate that everyone has to buy insurance. I reject the unfounded assertion that the so-called “insurance exchanges” would work as well as a public option to control costs. If the exchanges were as effective as a public option, they would not have been included in this bill either. Without a government-backed public option that is available to everyone, the present legislation is yet another mechanism to transfer money from the paychecks of struggling poor people into the pockets of wealthy corporations and the already rich people who run them.

We have reached this unfortunate state because of the filibuster. With the Republicans united in opposition, the Democrats were required to cave to whatever demands were made by conservative Democrats and independents, Senators who might be called DINOs: Democrats In Name Only. These are anti-choice, anti-public-option, anti-progressives who cynically campaigned on the Democratic ticket to ride the wave of anti-Bush public sentiment, not because they actually support progressive causes. In order to pass health care reform legislation, Congress was compelled to severely compromise the bill, inserting language that would make it more difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion, killing the public option, and omitting any clause that would prevent insurance companies from charging unaffordable rates to those who are no longer excluded by their pre-existing conditions. As a result, the bill will not end the wave of medical bankruptcies that have swept the nation and which have been the topic of much discussion in the media.

My conclusion is this: it is time to kill the filibuster. When they are the minority party, Democrats are too timid in their opposition to actually employ the filibuster, and Republicans get their way. Now that they have a majority in the Senate, the entire Democratic party is essentially being told what to do by a small number of Senators who threatened to withhold their support unless the bill were watered down, emasculated, stripped of meaningful reform, and fouled by anti-choice provisions. Even when progressives have the majority, conservatives still get their way. All this is because 60 votes are required to end a filibuster. Yet the filibuster is not a Constitutional provision. It is simply accepted practice, a long-standing tradition. Ending the filibuster would not require a Constitutional amendment. Ending the filibuster would only require a simple majority vote, and the backing of the Senate Majority Leader.

In principle, we are a country of majority rule. Majority rule is the fundamental basis of democracy. Judicial review has become a cornerstone of Constitutional democracy: that is to say, if the majority passes a law that impedes the rights of the minority, the courts can strike down that law. As it has been used in the past decades, the filibuster does not serve the purpose of protecting the rights of individuals; it protects the special interests of the wealthy. The filibuster is anti-democratic. The filibuster is not a part of the Constitution. The filibuster must go.

Death to the filibuster!

Yet somehow this party’s spokespeople like to pretend that it is the party of small government??? The party of fiscal responsibility? How do a surveillance state and record deficits square with small government?

Give it up, Republicans. Admit that your agenda is the relentless push for a totalitarian state. Admit that all this “tea party” grandstanding is just so much posturing. The only “freedom” you represent is the freedom of large corporations to take advantage of the people. Your objective is to prevent individual people from having the freedom to make such basic self-determinations as whether or not to have a baby. Your party does not stand for freedom, and your ideology has nothing to do with small government.