The problem, right and left, is that both parties try to protect themselves from the voters. But our representatives, of course, are supposed to represent us and our interests, not their own. That's the whole problem. The parties have corrupted the system.

Your caution, Chris, is that reform would make government more responsive so that when Republican's are returned to office Republican policies will follow—as they should. That's not a bad thing. Circumventing democracy to protect pet policy positions is exactly what we need to stop.

-David

p.s. As for Republicans being more cohesive, I think there is a reason for this.

The reason is simple politics. Republicans have completely embraced the idea that government should be for businesses and not people - i.e. "trickle down" theory in one form or another. So they can fully embrace the corporate agenda of well-heeled corporate groups like the US Chamber of Commerce.

Democrats haven't quite abandoned the principle that government is by the people, for the people, but at the same time, they still like their campaign contributions from big business. So they have to pick and choose and often appeared divided as different politicians seek to satisfy different corporate constituents on different pieces of legislation.

This is also the reason why it's easier for Republicans to pass legislation with a minority. All they have to do is find a few Democrats who owe some favors to big business. While Democrats, to pass legislation, often have to find politicians will to go AGAINST their corporate benefactors.

I think you are missing CW's point.

Any change to make filibusters harder will come back and bite the Democrats on the ass when THEY become the minority party again.

Which will probably be after the 2010 mid-term elections.

It's easy to fall into the trap by thinking that Democrats, so loved by the American Public {{{cough}}} bullshit {{{cough}}} will always remain the majority party, but it just ain't so.

So, it is very short sighted of Democrats to want to change things to make it easier and better for Democrats in the here and now. Because those "easier and better" tools will be inherited by the GOP when THEY become the majority party.

Now, me personally, I agree with you. Let's make it harder to be obstructionist. Let's make it harder for special interests and lobbyist-paid-for CongressCritters to get their "sweethart" deals

That would be the logical and rational thing to do.

It's just that, after the 2010 elections, such action will really favor the Republicans.

Michale.....

I disagree with Krugman..

Doing nothing is the ONLY logical option when it is likely that the "something" that Democrats want to do will only make matters worse..

And Democrats, having been the ones to change the rules, would have absolutely no leg to stand on when attempting to complain about the outcome.

But, Democrats being Democrats, they STILL will complain..

One only has to look at the recent debacle in MA to know this is true.

So, like I said, while it is very, very tempting to call for watering down the 60-vote limit, I would urge proponents of the idea to exercise a little caution about what exact number you would choose. Because there will indeed come a point when the tables are turned, so I really wouldn't advise setting it too low.

This caution is definitely warranted. Democrats very rarely look at the "big picture" and have not mastered the skill of thinking in the long term.

Which is simply another reason why Democrats, as a whole, do not make good leaders.

Michale.....