Bright, Inf inite Future

Congressional approval ratings seem to be falling farther every day, and I think that a large factor in this is the appearance that Congress isn’t getting much of anything done. Health care, for example, has stolen the headlines for months, and now the probability of passing reform like that initially envisioned is slim indeed. Other legislative efforts are similarly deadlocked.

Why, with control of both houses in Congress and the White House to boot, are Democrats having such a hard time making ground? In a word: filibuster.

In the past, the filibuster, while an annoyance, didn’t often keep a majority from creating legislation. But starting in the 110^th congress (the one before the current 111^th), we’ve seen a massive increase in filibusters. Just look at this graph of cloture motions from the past half-century (from Wikipedia):

Part of this huge rise is because cloture is now used for other reasons in addition to shutting down a filibuster, but the number of filibusters has also skyrocketed since the Republicans lost power in 2006. And this graph isn’t even counting the latest Congress!

Now, in general, the filibuster can be a worthwhile political tool. It allows a single senator to stand up against legislation that he or she doesn’t believe in. It can force further discussion on an issue and create public attention. With it, a minority party can still have an effect on the legislative process.

But, at the same time, requiring a 3/5 majority to create policy doesn’t make sense. If there are more senators who support a bill than senators who don’t, the bill should pass.

Why hasn’t the filibuster been eliminated long ago? Largely because the majority party is always scared that if they get rid of it, once they fall out of power, they’ll be powerless. And, as illustrated above, filibusters weren’t as prevalent in the past as they are currently.

But now that bills are being filibustered left and right, it’s clear that if Congress wants to get real work done, something about the filibuster rule has to change.

So the question becomes, how can we give a minority party some power over a majority power without letting them derail the majority’s legislation?

What we need is a compromise. Maybe a party could be limited to a certain number of filibusters per bill. Or the number of senators required for cloture could be reduced. Or we could look at a more novel idea, like the one proposed by Iowa senator Tom Harkin (from a Washington Post interview with him):

The idea is to give some time for extended debate but eventually allow a majority to work its will. I do believe there’s some reason to have extended debate. If a group of senators filibusters a bill, you want to take their worries seriously. Make sure you’re not missing something. My proposal will do that. It says that on the first vote, you need 60. Then you have to wait two days, and on the third day, you need 57 votes. And then you need to wait two days, and on the third day, it’s 54 votes. And then you’d wait another two days, and on the third day, it would be 51 votes.

But whatever compromise is worked out, I believe that the current de facto supermajority requirement simply doesn’t work. When a bill that has the support of the majority of senators can’t pass, you know that something is wrong.

According to a recent Gallup annual poll, 55% of Americans rated members of Congress as having “low or very low” ethical standards. For the first time ever, Congress scored even lower than car salesmen, whose ethical standards only 51% of Americans considered low or very low.

In the current political climate, this number isn’t really that surprising. Between tea party marches decrying government, attendees at town hall meetings lashing out at senators, and the unforgettable “you lie!” during Obama’s speech, it seems as if respect for our government is at an all-time low.

This attitude is one that I find quite disconcerting. I believe that a basic trust in and respect of the institution of government is a fundamental factor in any functioning democracy.

Now, I’m not saying that the public should blindly accept everything the government tells it, or that all elected officials are saints. Obviously, there are some politicians who don’t deserve the public’s trust or votes. It’s hard to turn on the news without hearing about the latest political scandal, whether it’s John Edwards’ affair or Mark Sanford’s steamy Argentinean jaunt or Rod Blagojevich’s senate seat selling.

But the fact is, not every governor or senator or representative is an Edwards, a Sanford, or a Blagojevich. Of the 535 members of congress and countless other politicians that work every day to keep our government running, there are sure to be some bad eggs. Judging the ethical standards of all politicians by a few choice examples, however, is just silly. It’s just that CNN isn’t going to do a top-of-the-hour report on how the junior senator from so-and-so passed another bill helping his state’s residents like they would if that same senator was caught embezzling funds.

But scandals are only one part of the puzzle of why politicians garner such widespread disrespect. These days, it’s considered kosher not to trust or respect someone simply because you disagree with them. Just look at the town hall meetings, Joe Wilson’s little interruption, or Rush Limbaugh’s comments about how he hopes Obama fails.

When it comes down to it, I believe that most politicians, no matter their political ideas, are working toward the same goal: making America a more perfect union. Agreeing with and respecting or trusting politicians are two completely different things.

So give your friendly neighborhood politician a little slack. The odds are, he or she is still working for you. And, at the very least, they aren’t trying to sell you a car.

Afghanistan isn’t exactly in a good position right now. Fighting what sometimes seems a futile war against a stubborn insurgency, wracked with corruption, and filled with foreign troops, things don’t look too good for the country.

Now, though, Afghanistan is at a turning point. The upcoming runoff election will have wide-ranging significance on the country and the war.

Let’s review. The Afghan election was originally held in August, and was immediately followed by widespread claims of fraud. These allegations lead to a United Nations Election Complaint Committee intervention and recount. After throwing out almost a quarter of all ballots as fraudulent, the Committee announced last week that incumbent president Hamid Karzai received 49.7% of the vote – the highest of the more than 40 candidates that ran for president but still not enough to secure Karzai a win. Because Karzai failed to achieve a majority, he must run against his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, in a runoff election on November 7.

This election provided an opportunity for a turning point in Afghanistan’s future, and the upcoming runoff election is a second chance for the country. As President Obama decides whether or not to send more Coalition troops to Afghanistan, the outcome of the election will greatly influence his decision.

Although Karzai was the clear frontrunner in the first round of the election, the upcoming runoff is far less predictable.

Let’s take a moment to compare the two candidates.

Karzai’s current government is corrupt and inefficient, and is largely failing at containing the Taliban. Karzai himself has strong ties to many individuals of a dubious nature; both of his vice presidential candidates, for example, have been accused of human rights violations by Human Rights Watch, an international human rights organization. One was accused of killing thousands of innocent people.

Abdullah, on the other hand, is seen as a symbol of a newer and younger Afghanistan, one that puts less power in the hands of tribal warlords and more in the hands of a more modern government. Simply put, he is a reformer.

It’s not hard to guess who I’m rooting for. But more interesting than who wins the election is the far-reaching consequences of any result.

A victory for Abdullah would be the perfect opportunity for the Obama administration to intensify efforts to secure Afghanistan. A new government, with more focused power in the central government and more support from the people, would be more effective at helping Coalition troops oust the Taliban.

However, if Karzai wins the election, or even worse, it is confounded yet again by fraud, Obama may need to reevaluate his priorities with Afghanistan. Fighting the Taliban is bad enough by itself, but fighting the Taliban in a country unsupportive of its government could end up a disaster.

This need for support especially ties into a key objective of the war in Afghanistan, and one that I consider of tantamount importance: winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

Modern technology lets even a single individual become a weapon in the form of a suicide bomber. A single Afghani citizen turned against America can cause the death of many. On the other hand, a single Afghani citizen turned away from the Taliban can save many lives. And young men aren’t the only ones who need to be convinced. In Afghanistan, it’s considered shameful and disgraceful for a man to enter the Taliban without first getting blessing and permission from his mother.

So, for debatably the first time in history, winning civilian support is as important or even more important than succeeding militarily. And if Coalition forces are to capture the hearts and minds of Afghan citizens, the Afghan government that America and its allies support must be appealing to those same Afghan citizens.

As President Obama approaches a major decision on whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan, he’s obviously considering the political situation of the country. The winner of the runoff election, and more importantly, its fairness, will significantly affect the success or failure of the war in Afghanistan.