Posted on 05/17/2005 9:25:27 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The showdown over President Bush's judicial nominees reflects the raw nature of modern-day politics: Senators pulled to their political extremes by special interest groups, with a dwindling few clinging to a semblance of moderation and tradition.
Compromise, while possible, is more painful than ever because of changes in media, technology and politics.
Special interest groups are richer and more powerful than a few years ago. New technologies make it easier for these groups to rally partisan voters who, because of C-Span, 24-hour cable TV news, the Internet and other communication innovations, are more plugged into politics than in times past. Closely fought presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 have raised the stakes, and tensions, in Washington.
All this makes a nuclear event out of a fight over a few judges and an arcane Senate rule.
"Members of Congress are under more scrutiny from various interest groups who play a larger role in politics in every single way than they did in the past," Democratic consultant Jim Jordan says. "That makes it very difficult for even well-meaning and sensible members of Congress to come together for compromise."
The latest battle is over whether President Bush's full slate of judicial picks should be put to a Senate vote. Outnumbered in the Senate, Democrats put several nominees in legislative limbo by invoking a common parliamentary rule allowing protracted debate.
Republicans, who hold 55 of the 100 seats, want to change the rule to cut from 60 to 51 the votes needed to end the tactical debate called a filibuster when applied to judicial nominations.
The filibuster is a decades-old tradition that gives minority parties a check against the majority. But this is not a fight over Senate rules; it's an expression of brute power, with special interests on both sides warming up for an expected confrontation over the future of the Supreme Court.
On one side are conservative leaders who, after helping Republicans gain control of the White House and Congress, want results. If the Senate GOP leadership accepts anything less than a vote on each of Bush's nominees, "I think people will be extremely upset," said Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network.
On the notion that GOP leaders might allow some nominations to fail without a vote, she said flatly, "They won't."
In the other corner are liberal interest groups whose leadership helped finance Democratic candidates. They also want a return on their investments, and say compromise is not an option. "You cannot back down from bullies," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Confrontation justifies the existence of special interest groups, and helps them raise money. "Interest groups are much more likely to boil the oil and run the ramparts on issues that might otherwise seem trivial," Jordan said.
Stuck in the middle are a few Republican and Democratic senators, wavering between compromise and confrontation.
"If we fail to step back from the abyss, we will descend into a dark, protracted era of divisive partisanship," said Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania who has not indicated publicly what course he will take.
Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a congressional watchdog group, said the judicial fight is a reflection of intensely partisan times. "If you look at the recent elections, this country seems divided," he said. The competition puts political operatives in a constant state of campaigning, he added.
That's not the only reason for the polarization of Washington. In the House, redistricting has increased the number of districts that are overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican, meaning fewer congressmen have an incentive to court moderate voters.
Another factor may be recent changes in campaign finance laws that limit the ability of parties to raise money, thus increasing reliance on third-party groups. Jordan, who helped run one of those groups in 2004, said the increase in media channels is another factor.
"It used to be that if a congressman got a couple of hundred letters on an issue, that was a groundswell," Jordan said. "Now he might get tens of thousands of e-mails ginned up by interest groups."
There is an entire industry in Washington that uses the Internet and other technologies to find partisan voters and get them to lobby members of Congress with e-mails or by showing up at town hall meetings.
"It doesn't seem revolutionary now, but C-Span had a lot to do with this," Jordan said of the cable TV network devoted to congressional coverage. "It took a lot of effort a few years ago to see what Congress was up to. Most people had access to one paper, that's it.
"Dealmaking and compromise depend to a certain extent on quiet and privacy," he said. "That is hard to find these days."
Like Reid, Pelosi, and Kennedy, no doubt.
cough cough term limits....
Like it or not Arlen, we are there now. The only question now is whether the Repubs are going to fight back or just bend over and take it.
"Dealmaking and compromise depend to a certain extent on quiet and privacy keeping voters ignorant," he said. "That is hard to find these days."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.