The Opposition Opposes

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.


THE OPPOSITION OPPOSES….Atrios says it’s OK for the opposition party to oppose the president en masse:

I don’t have a problem with Republicans who, on balance, wanted the bill to pass but still voted against it. I don’t really think it’s “cowardice” or whatever, they’re simply making it clear that they’re the opposition party. And that’s a good thing! It’s only in bizarro Broderville, combined with the annoying supermajority bits of the Senate, that anyone really thinks differently.

Basically, I agree. Both parties have an interest in differentiating themselves, and the best way to do that is to make the majority party responsible for its agenda.

But as Atrios also points out, there’s one problem with this: “the annoying supermajority bits of the Senate.”  A parliamentary system is fine if you have the machinery of a parliamentary system, in which the majority party has the power to pass its legislative program and then stands or falls based on how well it works out.  But it’s not so fine if a party can win the presidency, the House, and the Senate by landslide majorities but still can’t pass big parts of its program because it needs 60 votes in the Senate.

If Republicans want to adopt the party discipline features of a parliamentary system, fine.  But they also need to adopt the rest of the system as well.  The filibuster was never intended to become a routine requirement that all legislation needs 60% of the vote in the Senate to pass.  But that’s what it’s become.  It’s time for reform.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.