Cloture Rules: How Obama May Bring One-Party Rule to America
By Jonathan Bean on Nov 6, 2008 in Elections, Presidential Power, The State
Consider the following:
*An unpopular Republican president leaving office in the midst of an
*Unpopular war and
*Severe recession (or possibility of one)
*Voters have swept Democrats into power
*The mood is for change in how things are done in Washington, D.C.
The year is not 2008, the president is not George W. Bush. The year is 1974, the president is Richard M. Nixon, and the “Class of 1974″ Democrats are ready to sweep into Congress and rewrite the rules that govern the political process.
Why is this flashback important? Because the following year (1975), those “change” politicians did rewrite the rule on “cloture“: the parliamentary motion to end debate on a bill, including filibusters. In 1974, it took two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to approve cloture and force a vote on a bill. After the 1975 reform, it took only 60% of the Senators to shut down debate. This naturally leads to the question:
What will prevent the Democrats from rewriting the rules to lower the cloture bar to 51 Senators? In practical terms, that means the gagging of the Republican minority. We will have one-party rule, utterly. The only downside is that voters might see it as a power grab (which it is) but with a smooth-talking president of the same party, who will raise the issue? Surely the Democrats will spin it as as democracy in action; after all, it still takes a majority to shut down debate, correct? But this would be a sea change in the way Congress does business and it may leave the GOP gasping for air.
1993 was the last time the Democrats controlled the White House and Congress. Bill Clinton floated universal health care and it bombed, in part because of the outrage fomented by conservative talk show radio.
Compare that time period, when small-government conservatives and libertarians got the message out via radio, with today’s situation:
*Multiple media outlets all vying for the voter’s attention
*The Internet is a powerful force, whereas in 1992 it scarcely scored on the public radar (Google didn’t get started until the late 1990s!)
*Social networking is way up, newspaper readership (and radio listening) is way down.
*There are no conservative Democrats left as there were during the 1975 cloture debate. Those opponents of cloture reform forced a compromise requiring 60% of all U.S. Senators sworn into office, not jut 60% of those “present” (God knows, our president-elect knows all about being “present” during important votes!).
Liberartarians were rightly critical of the Republicans up to 2006, when the voters threw the bums out of office. Many libertarians are still angry at the big government conservatism ushered in by George W. Bush and even welcome an Obama presidency as some sort of Pyrrhic payback for having ever slept with the GOP.
At the same time, many libertarians recognize that divided government is the best real-world check on the short-term growth of government (in a later blog, I will address the long term). By any measure, one-party rule by a left-wing party is not good for the values libertarians hold dear.
If cloture reform does not worry you, I will not mention the frequent talk in the 1970s about statehood for the District of Columbia—guaranteed Democratic seats in the U.S. Congress.
In a word, gird your loins and get ready for unchecked Democratic rule. If you thought it could not get worse than unified GOP rule, then history may prove you wrong.
Then again, it may prove me wrong. That would be a very good thing for us all. I welcome being wrong!




















Listen to a few interviews with Ron Paul, Webster Tarply, and Bev Harris on the Alex Jones show. They are available at
http://drop.io/Summerbird The game is rigged, Obama, Bush, McCain, etc. are all criminals taking their orders from the same people.
Edward S. | Nov 7, 2008 | Reply
While they all have their own agendas and people they are trying to please, to say all politicians are criminals is going a bit too far.
Sure Bush is, but doesn’t someone new, like Obama, deserve a chance before you begin to bash him?
Let’s wait four years and then start the mud-slinging if it’s necessary. Like Mr. Bean said, he could be wrong.
Chris | Nov 7, 2008 | Reply
May I remind those who recall the Nixon administration as crooked and full of paranoia
that Nixon was elected with an overwhelming popular vote? Also, recall that Nixon cut short a losing war (Vietnam) which had cost the USA greatly in resources and lives.
So, now Nixon is a bad guy and those who initiated the war are revered. Go figure!
This is not to suggest that the Nixon administration was good; it wasn’t. But it was not as bad as were other administrations of the times.
Buddy | Nov 11, 2008 | Reply
Are you comparing Obama to Nixon? I’m not sure.
Nixon won by a real landslide but he faced a Democratic Congress–a key distinction. Historians have rehabbed “Nixon the liberal” because he told his aides it was useless fighting the Dems on the outpouring of regulation and taxation that took place in those years.
This isn’t about Obama per se but about one-party rule — and the potential for a united president and Congress to change the rules for decades to come. That is miles away from the Nixon era.
Jonathan Bean | Nov 11, 2008 | Reply
Chris, Valuable point about a blanket statement about politicians being crooks, as well as giving the man time, but let’s not forget that our President-elect is a sitting Senator, and some of us actually follow the votes of our candidates… If taking money that doesn’t belong to you and giving it away to people who shouldn’t have it make you a criminal, then he’s guilty. If allowing the president to commit treason rather than vote for an inquiry makes you a criminal, than he’s guilty as charged.
And Buddy, do you remember “Price-Fixing”? I do, and my copy of the Constitution doesn’t allow a President to do it. How about taking the US off of the Gold Standard? With the stroke of a pen, he kept all of the money, and left us with all of the currency… by any reasonable definition, that is theft, and that makes one a criminal. For the record, I don’t have a high standard. All that I ask for is an honest man who will not renege on an oath given with his hand on a bible and before an entire nation looking on… or perhaps in hindsight, maybe I do have high standards.
joe4liberty | Nov 11, 2008 | Reply
With Scott Brown elected as 41, It looks like it might happen.
Your are insightful to see this so far ahead.
Keep this post up! It could show a great prediction.
Fred | Jan 20, 2010 (3 weeks ago) | Reply