As the Trump administration continues to smash a metaphorical wrecking ball into the federal government, many congressional Democrats seem to have embraced the role of passive observers. In response to a vocal base wondering why they aren’t doing more, Democrats, who have minority representation in both chambers of Congress, have at times complained that they lack power and leverage to act forcefully. There’s some truth to that sentiment — but it illustrates a lack of tactical creativity and a strategic certainty.
It’s true, as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., lamented last week, that the House’s rules are set up to benefit whoever can muster a majority, even if it’s only by one vote. The most leverage House Democrats can use then depends on peeling off support from a Republican caucus that is largely in lockstep. In the Senate, though, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has more plentiful options for stalling President Donald Trump’s agenda — and he’s barely used any.
There is another option for, if not totally stopping things, at least slowing things to a crawl.
For better or for worse, the Senate’s rules are designed to empower individual senators and those members who find themselves in the minority on an issue. In general, those rules are meant to keep the debate flowing among the Senate’s members, but there are two mechanisms on opposite ends of the spectrum that are designed to either speed things up or slow them down. Most of the focus in recent years has been on the filibuster, which requires a vote of 60 senators to end debate and force a vote on almost any substantive matter.
It remains my belief that the filibuster is an antidemocratic tool that doesn’t serve as the bulwark against extremism its defenders say it does, as much as it’s used to shelter abuses of Americans’ rights and prevent positive change. But there is another option for, if not totally stopping things, at least slowing things to a crawl. Much of the Senate’s work is measured in floor hours, the amount of time a bit of business must be debated before a vote can be held on it. If the filibuster is the spanner in the works, meant to grind things to a halt in the Senate, “unanimous consent” is the grease that keeps the gears turning smoothly.
Here’s how I previously described unanimous consent agreements, which generally involve a senator telling the chair, “I ask unanimous consent for” whatever they are proposing: “Such agreements basically operate on the assumption that all 100 senators are totally fine with whatever action is being proposed, no vote needed. The most basic unanimous consent agreement can be used to insert items into the Congressional Record; the most complicated can line up weeks’ worth of legislative action in the time it takes to read out the agreement.” It only takes one senator’s disagreement to nip those agreements in the bud though making it a primed weapon for obstruction,