Frist's gonna have mah legs broke

In two separate Slate articles--one advocating to keep the filibuster and another explaining various stalling tactics employable by the minority to throw a wrench in majority steam rolling in the event that a democratic filibuster is deemed unconstitutional by [uh oh] Dick Cheney--we get a good look at how uncivilized and combative our legislative process is.

Holy shit I don't know why I used the word uncivilized. More like divisive . . . which is a synonym of combative . . . damn.

It's trench warfare and there's always tons of the collateral damage of real change suffered for the sake of politicking, always with the justification that if enough effective politicking is done, the party you like will eventually have the power to affect real change.

So where is the real change?

Wouldn't it be better if, instead of two parties slogging it out, the majority imposing upon the minority and the minority scrapping to deflect those plans with guerilla parliamentary procedure, we found a way to include more [ideological] diversity in our lawmaking body. That would, hopefully stimulate the gradual move toward a representative government that truly represents its constituency [I'm arguing here for stronger hardline parties, strangely enough] and a legislature whose makeup is less likely to include a true majority for any one party.

Even if conservatives, as it were, in their many parties, still comprised a majority, they would be forced, if they hoped to accomplish anything, to create coalitions a la European parliaments. Having to parley and appease the hardline parties in lawmaking would do two things, force real dialogue between members of a specific ideology [conservatism lets say, broad a category as that is]. This would lead to concessions for minority groups in exchange for vital votes and also give members of the ruling party pause [is our bill worth these concessions? Do these concessions destroy the bill's intent?].

It even allows, given sufficient support, for the sidestepping of the ruling party altogether. Though this is probably rare given that the ruling parties are usually fairly moderate and would thus require lions laying down with lambs, it could nonetheless serve as a vital check on a particularly abusive hegemony.

That seems so much better than the polarized quagmire we have now.

But the one thing the dominant parties in America do agree on is that they should remain dominant. With that kind of concord, the filibuster is absolutely necessary.