Lots of talk about how we need
filibuster reform driven mainly by
progressives but now a lot of
Democrats want to pass HR1 because
it makes them more likely to win
the next set of elections.
So now a lot of the leaders
are talking about it, but a couple
of their own is preventing them,
including Kyrsten Sinema.
We're going to get to Sinema in
a second because her hypocrisy is
awesome and we're going to break it
down for you guys.
But first, Dick Durbin,
number two in charge of
the Democrats in the Senate,
actually saying that they might
want to get rid of filibuster.
Let's watch.
The filibuster is still making
a mockery of American democracy.
The filibuster is still being
misused by some senators to block
legislation urgently needed and
supported by a strong majority of
the American people.
Rather than protecting the finally
balanced system our founders
created, today's filibuster throws
the system out of balance,
giving one half of one branch of
government what amounts to veto
over the rest of government.
It promotes gridlock,
not good governance.
>> Look, that's super obvious,
right?
But just four years ago,
31 Democratic senators were
like we will
never get rid of the filibuster.
It allows us to hide.
Why would we get rid of our
blankie?
We can hide under the blankie and
pretend we're for
progressive economic legislation
and never actually pass it.
And Durbin was among those folks.
He didn't want to get rid of
the filibuster.
So now he does because they need
that HR1 as a sweet,
sweet HR1 voting rights, which
is great, but also helps them win.
So that's why he's going in this
direction.
Now, one of his principal opponents
is Kyrsten Sinema,
the Republican oops, the Democratic
senator from Arizona.
Now, why does a Democrat
want to block it?
She is, along with Joe Manchin,
the two most pro corporate senators
in the Democratic Party and
maybe in all of the Senate.
So she wants to block every
economic piece of legislation that
the Democrats have on behalf of her
corporate donors.
That's who Sinema is.
So let me be clear about our
quotes.
She said retaining the legislative
filibuster Is not
meant to impede the things that
we want to get done, hilarious.
Rather, it's meant to protect what
the Senate was designed to be,
a place where senators come
together, find compromise and
get things done for our country.
Okay, let me be super clear.
None of that is true.
And I'm going to prove it
definitively for
you guys in a minute.
That is not what
the filibuster is for.
The filibuster was to
end civil rights.
So I will explain.
But first,
is she at all open to negotiating
on this with fellow Democrats?
She's open to negotiating
everything with the Republicans and
she just said it.
I want to compromise with
the Republicans.
I'm desperate to give
the Republicans things that they
don't deserve because they're in
the minority.
But I want to give it to them
anyway because that's what my
donors want, okay?
So how about compromising
with Democrats?
Is she open to any reform of
the filibuster?
She says, in January,
a spokesperson for Sinema said she
was against eliminating
the filibuster and quote, not open
to changing her mind on that point.
So to Republicans, yes,
to Democrats and progressives,
hell no, okay?
Now, what's great is Brianna
Westbrook, former Justice Democrat
candidate, now [INAUDIBLE] shared
the Democratic Party in Arizona,
now has some degree of power.
This is why I tell you to run for
things because you can make
a difference.
And Brianna was awesome.
So she's saying hey, you know what,
you said that you wanted
fundamental change.
We know we can't get fundamental
change without getting
rid of the filibuster.
So let me throw your video
right back at you.
They're in the same party in
the same state.
That's why this is courageous,
is bold, and I'm here for it.
Let's watch. This is
Brianna Westbrook.
>> Looking at a revival of
the progressive movement in
Arizona, things are so
bad in our state that, but
actually can sometimes be helpful.
Because it really brings people
together to fight in a collective
movement for progress.
>> So that's Brianna Westbrook,
throwing Sinema's
own words right back at her.
You said things are so
bad that you need this reform.
Now you're saying I don't need any
stinking reform.
I rather just agree with
Republicans.
That's just basically a fact.
By the way, you don't actually
agree with the Republican voters.
You agree with Republican
politicians.
So now let's go to the data for
progress poll in Arizona.
So do her voters agree with her?
And this is not just Democrats.
This is all voters in Arizona.
Is it more important to you that
Senators pass major legislation to
address the problems we face as
a nation, or that they preserve
traditional Senate procedures and
rules like the filibuster?
The majority, 61%,
said it is more important to pass
major legislation.
Around a quarter, 26%, said
it was more important to preserve
traditional Senate procedures.
So Kyrsten Sinema, the politician,
is doing this for
26% of her electorate?
That makes no sense.
What that poll doesn't tell
you is 99% of her donors don't
want her to end the filibuster
because that's their excuse for
not passing higher wages, health
care for everybody, etc, okay?
By the way, of her own Democratic
voters, 76% say it's more important
to pass major legislation.
So now, let's talk about what
the reality is.
Look, you hear all the time,
filibuster, I mean it is part of
Senate tradition.
It's so important.
It's been around forever and
they make it sound like it's
part of the Constitution.
It is not at all part of
the Constitution.
In fact, the founding fathers
hated it as I'm
about to prove to you, okay?
But first,
let me give you even more context.
How often was a filibuster used in
the past?
Almost never, so let me explain,
from 1917 to 1970, and this is
Ezra Klein from the New York Times
and these are facts.
The Senate took 49 votes to break
filibusters, 49.
Those are cloture votes.
That is fewer than one each year.
On average,
less than one a year between 1917
to 1970.
Okay, we're going to get to what
those votes were in a second, okay?
But it's barely used.
That is this actual
Senate tradition for over 50 years,
barely used, okay?
Now, since 2010, it has taken on
average more than 80 votes each
year to end filibusters,
more than 80.
What happened in 2010?
All right, Obama was president and
McConnell wanted to block his
entire agenda.
So McConnell came in and said,
once a year?
No, we're going to do it more than
80 times a year.
More than 80 times a year,
that's in 2010.
That's just 10, 11 years ago.
Senate tradition, my ass, okay,
they didn't use to block these
roads like this, okay?
It is just not,
it's empirically false.
By the way, look,
I get why Sinema wants to lie.
I get why McConnell wants to lie,
because they work for corporations.
They don't work for you.
But media, what are you doing?
Good job here by Ezra Klein of the
New York Times, give him credit,
give the New York Times credit.
But the rest of the media,
why do you keep calling it
Senate tradition when it was never
tradition?
And I remember covering it on
The Young Turks as
McConnell was doing it.
I'm like, why don't they make him
do a real filibuster and
talk it through?
He's doing 80 a year.
And everybody else in the media was
like, no, Cenk, I don't know what
you're talking about.
We were born yesterday.
Didn't we last year,
didn't we have 79 or 81?
No, we didn't.
We didn't. It's just not true.
But the media all regurgitate
corporate talking points.
So wait, hold up now though,
what was this about here though?
Did the founding fathers
actually want it?
What was the filibuster?
How did they even come about?
So he's in a conversation.
Ezra Klein was in his new show in
New York Times the podcast, and I'm
taking this from the transcript,
with Adam Jentleson,
who is a great guy.
He used to work for Harry.
Don't hold it against him.
He's generally a progressive and
he wrote a book about this
whole phenomenon.
And it's called Kill Switch: The
Rise of the Modern Senate and the
Crippling of American Democracy.
And he's an expert on
the filibuster, okay?
And remember,
he worked in the Senate so
he knows all these rules inside and
out and the history.
He explains, the irony here is
that the framers saw this coming.
And they identified this
misperception about supermajority
threshold at the time in 1789.
The reason they saw it was that
they had just finished having
direct first hand experience with
the Articles of Confederation,
which did require a supermajority
threshold for most major categories
of legislation.
Do you understand what he's
saying there?
Filibuster is not
in the constitution because they
didn't want it in the Constitution.
In fact, they wrote the
Constitution because the Articles
of Confederation sucked.
And the Articles of Confederation
had supermajorities like
the filibuster, so
they couldn't pass anything.
You remember you read it in
civics class?
You didn't read about
the filibuster part, but you read
the parts about how the Articles of
Confederation was so bogged down.
They couldn't pass any legislation.
Guess what?
We went back to the Articles of
Confederation.
We went back to the thing that
the founding fathers said that
definitely doesn't work.
We got to do just simple majority.
Now, get a load of this.
If you're still not convinced,
here's Alexander Hamilton,
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist
22, explaining this very concept.
Back then, again,
the concept is supermajorities,
just like a filibuster.
Here we go.
The necessity of unanimity in
public bodies or of something
approaching towards it, so
basically, a supermajority
requirement, has been founded upon
a supposition that it would
contribute to security.
But its real operation is to
embarrass the administration,
to destroy the energy of
the government, and to substitute
the pleasure, caprice, or artifices
of an insignificant, turbulent, or
corrupt junto or hunto to the
regular deliberations and decisions
of a respectable majority.
Now what does that mean?
That means a small group in
the minority,
in this case the Republicans, could
just block everything to embarrass
the current administration.
Well, in fact, it would be
politically motivated to do that.
It would be political negligence
not to block the legislation of
the current party in place if
you're the minority.
So Hamilton explained, this country
will never get anything done if we
let the minority block legislation.
We must have the majority in
a democracy actually pass the laws
that they said they would pass.
There is absolutely no dispute
about it.
The founding fathers hated
the idea of a filibuster.
That is why they did
not put it in the Constitution.
In fact, they wrote the whole
constitution to get
rid of the idea.
So media,
I'm begging you to do your job.
I'm begging you, because you guys
control the national conversation.
As long as you keep telling
falsehoods about how the filibuster
is part of American tradition, it
allows the corporate Democrats and
the corporate Republicans to hide
behind that veil.
So finally,
I promise it to you guys.
So what did they use the filibuster
for between 1917 and 1970 when they
used to use it about once a year?
Well, Adam explains civil rights
didn't pass back then.
And I think it's really important
for 87 years,
every single civil rights
bill that came before Congress, and
there were many, many,
from the end of Reconstruction in
1877 to the first time as Southern
filibuster was broken in 1964.
Every single civil rights bill that
came before the Senate was
systematically forced to clear
a super majority threshold.
And they were unable to do it.
And so, they all failed.
They never, and this is amazing.
They never used it for
a piece of legislation that was not
about civil rights.
In fact, a huge percentage of those
bills that they killed were
anti-lynching laws.
So let me give you this
final quote.
Adam Jentleson explains,
when Gallup polled federal
anti-lynching laws in 1937, they
found support at 72%, including
a majority support in the South.
Anti-poll tax laws also
had upwards of 60% support.
The country was ready for those
civil rights laws, but because of
the supermajority threshold,
they didn't pass in the Senate.
Now look, you could look at that
number and go, my god, only 72%
were against lynchings in 1937?
Right, but at the same time,
the country was certainly ready to
pass an anti-lynching law, but
they couldn't pass one for
another 30 years.
Because the racist senators from
the South said no,
we demand the right to lynch black
people.
And that's what they use the
filibuster for almost exclusively.
So don't tell me that
the filibuster is a good thing.
It is a monstrous thing that our
founding fathers despised and
was used mainly for the worst acts
in American history was.
>> Yeah, man, the way the media and
specifically, I'm not talking about
own or Fox News or hate radio.
I'm talking about CNN.
I'm talking about MSNBC.
I'm talking about the outlets that
are not your nice liberal auntie
watches on a nightly basis, okay,
your nice soccer mom auntie watches
all the time.
They're the ones espousing this
dreck.
It's just BS.
This is not some parliamentary
tradition that should just be held
so sacred.
And I might add, man, if four years
of Donald Trump in office didn't
teach us anything, it should have
taught us this, that most of these
norms nobody cares about.
This dude spent four years
completely obliterating and
smashing every civic procedural,
all kinds of norms.
And guess what?
We're still here somehow.
[LAUGH] I think we would be able
to survive an abolishment of
the filibuster, Cenk.
I'm sorry, it's hard for
me to believe that we can.
After watching Donald Trump treat
these cultural norms within on
the federal government as nothing,
which they obviously are.
>> That's such a great point, Wos.
Honestly, I forgot that for
a second.
[LAUGH] >> Right,
after Trump, we're having
a conversation about norms?
We're having a conversation
about norms.
We're talking about practice?
We're talking about practice.
[LAUGH] >> Okay,
don't talk to me about practice or
the playoffs, okay?
No, we're not talking
about etiquette.
We're not talking about norms.
We're not talking about
procedures, okay?
But, and guys, like I said,
because it isn't about that.
It's about the cover that
the Democrats need to not pass $15
minimum wage,
to not pass Green New Deal,
to not pass Medicare for All, to
not pass the economic agenda that
they pretend to be in favor of.
So media, please do your job and
explain people what the real facts
are and the real history are so
they can vote the right way.