Senate Procedures Changed to Address Gridlock

Here's an NYT story that might help my 2302's with this weeks written assignment:

In an effort to ease persistent Senate gridlock, the leadership on Thursday promised to temper the procedural warfare that has consumed the chamber in recent years and increased partisan tension. “We want the Senate to move deliberately,” said Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader. “But we want it to move.”

The bipartisan agreement left intact the filibuster, the most powerful weapon that can be used on the Senate floor. But the Senate approved other changes Thursday in rules intended to quicken the pace of action, including new limits on a single lawmaker’s ability to anonymously block legislation and nominations.

At the same time, Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, made a commitment to give Republicans more opportunity to change legislation on the floor in exchange for a commitment from Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, to refrain from filibustering attempts to bring up measures for debate.

“We want the Senate to move deliberately,” Mr. Reid said. “But we want it to move. We have to find a balance that will encourage us to debate and that also enables us to legislate.”

More on Pensmanship Exercises

They not only make you civil, they make you smarter!

%$#*& !

A student wrestling with the Washington civility assignment informs me of an effort to clean up the air in South Pasadena California by creating a cuss free zone:

Under a City Council proclamation approved Wednesday, those who use profanity or make rude gestures could find themselves shamed into better behavior by the unsettling glances of South Pasedena residents who take their reputation for civility seriously.

"That's one of the purposes of this," Mayor Michael Cacciotti said of his city's proclamation designating the first week of March as No Cussing Week. "It provides us a reminder to be more civil, to elevate the level of discourse."

Notice that there is no official enforcement mechanism, residents should take matters into their own hands by shaming others into compliance.

Two questions pop to mind. First will this work--will people respond to shaming? And second, is this in the spirit of Washington's rules? The rules did not state how others should behave, they only spoke about how the individual should behave. It's not about society, but about self control. The later is a precondition for the former. Let;s tie this second observation back to the first. Do we change society by enforcing change or by changing ourselves? And how do we determine whether either works?

Here's a related read: Regulation by Shaming.

There's at least one historical example of shaming causing social change. It was called frown power and it was used in the South by whites to signal subtly to racist whites that casual bigoted comments were not acceptable to them. It was developed by a man named Stetson Kennedy.