A conversation with former Senate insider Adam Jentleson on the purpose of the institution where change goes to die, what the founders would think of the filibuster, and three ways to reform the body
Thank you so much for this interview, and in general, for the perspective offered by The Ink. (New to this), I wouldn't say that I necessarily feel more hopeful about the political prospects, but I would say certainly less cynical. It's nice to get an understanding of the practical workings of the system, and the human aspect (e.g. Mitch McConnell's motivation - a confirmation of what it had seemed), and to get the sense that there are people within it, conversely, who are actually interested in doing things for greater good.
I listened to the interview Mr. Adams gave to Mary Louise Kelly on NPR the other day and was struck at the intransigence of those people who go to D.C. to "serve" their voters, then nothing gets done! I am so tired of people getting paid far more than me wasting our time playing games.
My solution for the Senate impasse vis a vis the current bull the minority leader McConnell is serving up, along with his ever present smirk:
1. Get Majority Leader Schumer a backbone.
2. Agree to keep the filibuster, but only with these things attached to it:
a. A minimum of Four Senators must be the start of the Filibuster to a particular bill.
b. A minimum of Two of the four Senators MUST report to the Senate floor within 24 hours of
issuance of the Filibuster to voice (no more of this blind holding up legislation with the
stroke of a keyboard!) their concerns and issues with the bill, allowing for ONE hour of
presentation per objecting Senator on the chamber floor ONLY, followed by ONE hour of
debate by the full chamber. ** If it ends there, a simple majority vote is taken to break the
Filibuster and the work on the bill continues.
c. If, after the first debates the Senate is still at an impasse and no simple majority vote has
been taken after the first Filibuster objections are voiced and debated, allow a 24 hour
cooling off period.
d. Once the cooling off period is completed, the Senate could either take a simple majority
vote to end the Filibuster if there are no more objections, but if there are still those who
wish to object via the Filibuster, they will be allowed ONE hour, ON THAT DAY ONLY, to
make their positions heard on the floor of the chamber ONLY, followed by
ONE hour of debate by the full chamber.
e. If a second debate day is needed as in (d) above, right after the second Filibuster is voiced
and debated, REQUIRE a simple majority vote on the motion to close Filibuster within 24
hours of the second set of objections and move forward with the bill.
3. Change the Senate rules in general to make it so that Senators actually have to be on the
floor of the chamber if they are for, against, or in between on a bill by calling simple majority
votes on several bills during a legislative day that might be of interest to the opposition.
I'm not sure why this is so darn difficult! I want to see the work of the country at least debated, voted on, implemented, tweaks after implementation, abandonment of programs that aren't working, etc etc. But this constant impasse over POWER has got to stop as it's not serving anyone except these people who are taking our tax money and saying they are working for us!
Jentleson does a great job of showing procedure and power. One thing bugs me: he keeps talking about 'The Sun Belt'. Is he aware that this is really just a euphemism for the former Confederacy? Los Angeles, Arizona, and New Mexico are in The Sun Belt, but I do not think he is talking about them. The definition of The Sun Belt even uses the 36th parallel from the Missouri compromise!
He is also ignoring MT+ND+SD+WY and even ID+AK, whose TOTAL populations are a little more than 1/2 of Los Angeles County. Did you know that Alex Padilla is the first member of the Senate from Southern California (4x the size of all the above states) in 30 years? Imagine if instead LA had been represented for the last 30 years and those states had not? What would our legal landscape look like today?
I would sacrifice Bernie if that meany Cheney never had power. I am happy to give up Harry Reid's tenure if Mitch McConnell never existed. Jantleson, and the Framers, are exactly right: minority groups from small states should have a voice, should be heard, and should lead if their ideas merit following, but they should not have the procedural, institutional power that they do today.
Good zoom! Warning: comment ahead. What I hear among my fellow inklings is a desire for change, but no perspective—we didn’t get in this mess overnight. You touched on the Republican 30 year long game plan to load the judiciary. I would hazard a guess that most of the younger side of your audience never had a civics or government class as part of there secondary education. I think some of this battle needs to return to our local school boards, advocating for a return to some fundamentals of how a democracy is constructed. But, please Lord not in the dry, pedantic ways of the past, or find some clever way to transfer the knowledge in a more palatable way via the web. BTW I do know how Mr Gates got his money and I haven’t forgotten. In a former life I lived and worked in Silicon Valley. I once saw a picture of bill hewlett, Dave packard & the other bill. The dichotomy could not have been more profound. Best, Channah
Exceptional an informative. The kind of changes we need along with legislation that clearly define when first amendment is exempt regarding sedition, blatant racism and gender inequality of any kind!
Thank you for the Zoomcast today, two anecdotal comments relating to it:
Regarding the point about the Oxford COVID vaccine and the Gates Foundation:
I worked for a number of years in Seattle doing heart exams. These usually last for an hour, and you get to meet a wide range of patients.
One day we happened to be doing an exam on the head of Bill Gates' personal PR team.
A rare opportunity - I asked, "Hey, what is Gates REALLY like?".
He paused, smiled with an admixture of rue and cynicism, and replied, "Well, let's just say that he pays me a lot of money to make him look like a nice guy".
Regarding the block party approach to politics:
In the mid-80s, there was a news story that showed a Township in Africa during the anti-apartheid movement. People had been shot. There was protest. People sang and DANCED!
Watching, the thought occurred: "There is no way that these people will lose".
We live now especially in an age of mass movements images and emotion.
A movement with substance, and yet with the appeal of life, and fun and humor (thinking of the Yippies dropping dollar bills on the NYSE) would have a certain kind of power that is not found in anger.
Thank you so much for this interview, and in general, for the perspective offered by The Ink. (New to this), I wouldn't say that I necessarily feel more hopeful about the political prospects, but I would say certainly less cynical. It's nice to get an understanding of the practical workings of the system, and the human aspect (e.g. Mitch McConnell's motivation - a confirmation of what it had seemed), and to get the sense that there are people within it, conversely, who are actually interested in doing things for greater good.
I listened to the interview Mr. Adams gave to Mary Louise Kelly on NPR the other day and was struck at the intransigence of those people who go to D.C. to "serve" their voters, then nothing gets done! I am so tired of people getting paid far more than me wasting our time playing games.
My solution for the Senate impasse vis a vis the current bull the minority leader McConnell is serving up, along with his ever present smirk:
1. Get Majority Leader Schumer a backbone.
2. Agree to keep the filibuster, but only with these things attached to it:
a. A minimum of Four Senators must be the start of the Filibuster to a particular bill.
b. A minimum of Two of the four Senators MUST report to the Senate floor within 24 hours of
issuance of the Filibuster to voice (no more of this blind holding up legislation with the
stroke of a keyboard!) their concerns and issues with the bill, allowing for ONE hour of
presentation per objecting Senator on the chamber floor ONLY, followed by ONE hour of
debate by the full chamber. ** If it ends there, a simple majority vote is taken to break the
Filibuster and the work on the bill continues.
c. If, after the first debates the Senate is still at an impasse and no simple majority vote has
been taken after the first Filibuster objections are voiced and debated, allow a 24 hour
cooling off period.
d. Once the cooling off period is completed, the Senate could either take a simple majority
vote to end the Filibuster if there are no more objections, but if there are still those who
wish to object via the Filibuster, they will be allowed ONE hour, ON THAT DAY ONLY, to
make their positions heard on the floor of the chamber ONLY, followed by
ONE hour of debate by the full chamber.
e. If a second debate day is needed as in (d) above, right after the second Filibuster is voiced
and debated, REQUIRE a simple majority vote on the motion to close Filibuster within 24
hours of the second set of objections and move forward with the bill.
3. Change the Senate rules in general to make it so that Senators actually have to be on the
floor of the chamber if they are for, against, or in between on a bill by calling simple majority
votes on several bills during a legislative day that might be of interest to the opposition.
I'm not sure why this is so darn difficult! I want to see the work of the country at least debated, voted on, implemented, tweaks after implementation, abandonment of programs that aren't working, etc etc. But this constant impasse over POWER has got to stop as it's not serving anyone except these people who are taking our tax money and saying they are working for us!
Jentleson does a great job of showing procedure and power. One thing bugs me: he keeps talking about 'The Sun Belt'. Is he aware that this is really just a euphemism for the former Confederacy? Los Angeles, Arizona, and New Mexico are in The Sun Belt, but I do not think he is talking about them. The definition of The Sun Belt even uses the 36th parallel from the Missouri compromise!
He is also ignoring MT+ND+SD+WY and even ID+AK, whose TOTAL populations are a little more than 1/2 of Los Angeles County. Did you know that Alex Padilla is the first member of the Senate from Southern California (4x the size of all the above states) in 30 years? Imagine if instead LA had been represented for the last 30 years and those states had not? What would our legal landscape look like today?
I would sacrifice Bernie if that meany Cheney never had power. I am happy to give up Harry Reid's tenure if Mitch McConnell never existed. Jantleson, and the Framers, are exactly right: minority groups from small states should have a voice, should be heard, and should lead if their ideas merit following, but they should not have the procedural, institutional power that they do today.
Good zoom! Warning: comment ahead. What I hear among my fellow inklings is a desire for change, but no perspective—we didn’t get in this mess overnight. You touched on the Republican 30 year long game plan to load the judiciary. I would hazard a guess that most of the younger side of your audience never had a civics or government class as part of there secondary education. I think some of this battle needs to return to our local school boards, advocating for a return to some fundamentals of how a democracy is constructed. But, please Lord not in the dry, pedantic ways of the past, or find some clever way to transfer the knowledge in a more palatable way via the web. BTW I do know how Mr Gates got his money and I haven’t forgotten. In a former life I lived and worked in Silicon Valley. I once saw a picture of bill hewlett, Dave packard & the other bill. The dichotomy could not have been more profound. Best, Channah
Watching what transpired this week (Jan. 29): McConnell is such a weird admixture of Machiavellian and quisling.
Exceptional an informative. The kind of changes we need along with legislation that clearly define when first amendment is exempt regarding sedition, blatant racism and gender inequality of any kind!
Thank you for the Zoomcast today, two anecdotal comments relating to it:
Regarding the point about the Oxford COVID vaccine and the Gates Foundation:
I worked for a number of years in Seattle doing heart exams. These usually last for an hour, and you get to meet a wide range of patients.
One day we happened to be doing an exam on the head of Bill Gates' personal PR team.
A rare opportunity - I asked, "Hey, what is Gates REALLY like?".
He paused, smiled with an admixture of rue and cynicism, and replied, "Well, let's just say that he pays me a lot of money to make him look like a nice guy".
Regarding the block party approach to politics:
In the mid-80s, there was a news story that showed a Township in Africa during the anti-apartheid movement. People had been shot. There was protest. People sang and DANCED!
Watching, the thought occurred: "There is no way that these people will lose".
We live now especially in an age of mass movements images and emotion.
A movement with substance, and yet with the appeal of life, and fun and humor (thinking of the Yippies dropping dollar bills on the NYSE) would have a certain kind of power that is not found in anger.
It just might could woik.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm_yR1uOnGU
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-new-york-stock-exchange-gave-abbie-hoffman-his-start-guerrilla-theater-180964612/