If members of Congress were invited to appear on a game show, the title would be quite simple: "The Blame Game."
For in Washington, the goal appears to be to find any way to avoid any responsibility for any action, even when it is a personal statement, vote or some other legislative entanglement.
There are those who have said over time that Congress is a cross-section of the people served, and recent actions certainly live up to that billing.
In an era when teachers are blamed for poor grades and bad conduct and when being overweight is laid at the feet of soft drink makers and snack food suppliers, it probably is appropriate for members of Congress to blame partisan politics, Tea Party pressures or anything else for the failure to address the country's issues.
The latest culprit being played up in the national media as deserving blame for the dysfunctional Congress is the filibuster.
This arcane procedure that allows one senator to hold up action on a piece of legislation or a presidential nominee is the blame du jour for the do-nothing Congress.
A national news magazine is emblazoned with the words, "Why Washington is Frozen." The use of the filibuster takes front and center as the root cause of the problem.
Another national news syndicate provides a graphic representation of how the Senate is "tied in knots" as Republicans use the stalling tactic to block the Democratic majority from passing legislation.
A short math lesson and a longer history lesson might put a few things in more context.
For the math course, when 60 votes are required to break any filibuster and the majority party has 60 votes, then the answer should be easy to compute: The one with the numbers wins. The numbers in the Senate changed late in 2009, meaning that President Obama and his 60-vote Democratic majority in the Senate should have been able to shut down any Republican talk-a-thon easily. Sure, the Senate rules require a certain number of days to expire before a vote to end the filibuster, but other things can be done in the interim.
The failure to put 60 votes on the board when you controlled 60 is more than a math lesson. It is a lesson in hardball politics. It may not be the best way to do business, but it is playing by the rules.
Often the requirement to shut off extended debate is nothing more than a hollow
political gesture, stalling to force individual senators to cast a vote that later will be used to raise campaign funds or as part of a future race.
In the past, the filibuster also was used to force the majority party to deal with the minority party in crafting a more bipartisan approach. The word "bipartisan" apparently has been struck from the Washington dictionary.
On to the quick history lesson, which for some reason has been mysteriously missing in the recent media scramble to blame the use of the filibuster for all that ails Congress.
A mere turn back of a few years would have found Democratic leader Harry Reid, leading the minority, bemoaning the suggestion by then-Republican leader Bill Frist, in charge of the majority, to change the Senate rules and allow fewer votes to approve presidential appointees to the courts. The Democrats locked up a number of judicial nominees, using the same tactics that now are being employed in the Senate.
Sanity prevailed and the so-called "nuclear option" was avoided. At the time, one point that was raised was about being careful not to change the rules when you are in charge because the same rules apply when you are out of power.
Holding up nominees, tying up legislation and filing interminable amendments are not recent tactics.
What has changed is why these political roadblocks are being used.
Gone is the desire to get something done, replaced by a willingness to do nothing.
That is the result when election or re-election takes priority over having to govern and take responsibility.
To reach Tom Griscom, call 423-757-6472 or e-mail tgriscom@timesfreepress.com.