“The filibuster is deeply rooted in historical efforts to oppress black Americans, starting with efforts to preserve slavery in the 19th century.”
Adam Jentleson is the author of Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy. He is the executive director of Battle Born Collective and was deputy chief of staff to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The Senate has long had a reputation as the greatest deliberative body in the world. It holds an almost mythical standing, but beneath that veneer is a highly dysfunctional institution controlled by the narrow interests of select Senators. The Constitution’s framers built a system capable of adapting to each era’s unique challenges. Through the targeted and discriminatory strengthening of the filibuster, that framing has been undercut and the Senate has become a legislative graveyard. “I think the Senate is on the verge of becoming just another failed institution in American life.”
The filibuster is a relic of Jim Crow. It was innovated by John C. Calhoun to prevent the inevitable abolition of slavery. Its threshold was then increased to 60 votes, serving as a block against civil rights legislation for the 87 years between the end of Reconstruction and 1964. “Civil rights bills between the end of Reconstruction and 1964 were the only category of legislation that was stopped by this supermajority threshold.”
LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE
SPEAKER
Adam Jentleson
Author
Kill Switch
MODERATOR
Anthony Scaramucci
Founder & Managing Partner
SkyBridge
EPISODE TRANSCRIPT
John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to bring you a very timely topic about the United States Senate with author and media contributor. Adam gentlemen, Adam, as I mentioned, is the author most recently of kill switch the rise of the modern Senate and the crippling of American democracy. Adam is currently the executive director of Battleborn collective and a former deputy chief of staff to Senator Harry Reid. So he's seen up close and personal the issues that we have with the modern Senate. He's a columnist as well for GQ and a frequent political contributor on MSNBC. And he lives, uh, near DC and Tacoma park, Maryland and hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci. Who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt and he has a little bit of experience in politics, but I'm not going to slam him today on his brief stint in the Trump administration. But with that, I'll turn
Anthony Scaramucci: (01:33)
It over to him. Listen, okay. Measuring this stuff
Adam Jentleson: (01:36)
By dog years at this point, just think of those two poor dogs that were thrown from the white house after 37 days. Okay. 3.36 Scaramucci, for those of you that are counting in Scaramucci. Okay. So, but apparently the dogs are coming back, but one thing is for certain Adam, I'm not coming back. Okay. I'm going to be stuck here in salt talks, talking to great authors like you. Uh, but I, uh, just a little bit of a true, you know, for your benefit. Uh, Senator Reed was super helpful to salt back in 2009. Uh, we decided to go to Las Vegas with the live conference when obviously way before the pandemic, uh, Vegas was being devastated by the last financial crisis. And so we elected to go with the air. He helped the range speakers for us. Unfortunately he couldn't make the first one, but he came to a few thereafter and, uh, no surprise to the people that know me.
Adam Jentleson: (02:31)
I am a donor of Senator Harry Reid. So I'm fairly bipartisan when it comes to donating, um, which got me in trouble with Donald Trump. But let's move on because we're talking about policy and we're talking about what is right for the country. I thought that spoke was fascinating. I'm going to hold it up for everybody. Okay. Kill, switch. Um, why did I think it was fascinating, Adam, because you're describing the history of the Senate that most Americans don't know, you're describing procedures in the Senate, which as we've learned from the rules about the parliamentarian, the procedures actually matter to the people in the Senate as they should. Uh, but you're also describing what needs to happen
Anthony Scaramucci: (03:13)
If we're going to have policy progress. And again, this is bi-partisan policy progress, which is what I loved about the book so much. So, uh, first of all, congratulations on the book. And then secondly, if you don't mind, tell us a little bit about your background and then I'd like you to talk a little bit about the book, you know, the skeleton of the book, the history of the Senate, et cetera. Some of don't give up all the great parts because I want people to go out and buy it, but I certainly want our, our viewers and listeners to learn from me.
Adam Jentleson: (03:42)
Sure. And thank you so much, John and Anthony for having me, it's really great to be here. Um, and thanks for reading the book. Uh, so about me, I, I started in politics. I didn't think I was going to go into politics, but I sort of grew up around it. My parents were teachers. Um, but my dad didn't put us,
Anthony Scaramucci: (04:00)
I just think we're going into pilot exam. It draws us in. Okay. It's like the Michael Corleone narrative. Okay. You can't, you can't get out either once. You're drawn in sorry to
Adam Jentleson: (04:09)
Interrupt, but no, no problem. Um, but yeah, no. So for me, I was in college in 2003 in New York city. And, uh, it was the Iraq war that sort of got the turning to politics. Um, I went to work from there on, uh, presidential campaign that year, uh, and for the next 10 years sort of bounced around between presidential campaigns and jobs and the sort of political campaign and nonprofit C4 type world. Um, and then I arrived in the Senate around 2010, uh, and that was sort of the defining, uh, professional experience for me. Um, I went straight to work for Senator Reed and spent my time within there, started in communications rose up to be deputy chief of staff to him. And so I was there through most of the big fights in the Obama administration. And, you know, the, the reason that I wrote this book is because of what I saw in my time there.
Adam Jentleson: (04:58)
And, you know, you get to the Senate and it's this mythical place. And you're told that it's this bastion of wisdom and thoughtfulness and bipartisanship. Um, and it's, you know, sometimes been able to live up to that reputation. But what I saw was a Senate that uses that reputation to cloak itself and hide the dysfunction that lies beneath it. Uh, and the experiences I had. There's got me asking questions about why is it this way? And when you ask these questions, you get very unsatisfying answers. They tend to be answers about Senate tradition and this sort of circular, it always comes back to sort of, it is this way because it is this way, you know, this is how the Senate wants it to be. Um, and I found those answers unsatisfying because what I saw was a Senate where it was shaped by power plays and it was shaped by individuals with narrow political interests, publicans and Democrats, uh, who would make power grabs and change the rules and shape the rules and shape and arms.
Adam Jentleson: (05:55)
And then explain it in the, in terms of grants that have tradition and try to explain how they were the ones standing up, um, for the framers vision and stuff like that. So I thought it would be helpful to write a book that tried to level set this and ground all of this talk in what the framers really meant and what they really intended to send it to be. And I'm not an originalist here. Um, I wouldn't claim that we should hang on to framers every word for, you know, thinking about how, what our laws should say and what our policies should be. But they did design a system that was capable of change and capable of adapting and meeting the challenges of new areas. And what we have today is a system that is incapable of change, but is incapable of passing common sense by partisan bills that have broad public support.
Adam Jentleson: (06:39)
Uh, and I think the Senate is on the verge of becoming just another failed institution in American life. And if it is unable to adapt, it's unable to change. If it gets too obsessed with preserving itself in Amber, um, it's going to be a failed institution and the country is going to be worse off for it. So that's what brought me to this book and what I hope the book does offer readers, tearing down some of that it's cutting through the fog and trying to get down to, to what it was really supposed to be and how it can change.
Anthony Scaramucci: (07:04)
So, so, okay, so let's go back. Cause I think this is instructive for our listeners, uh, and correct me if I'm wrong. Uh, the Senate is actually in parts of our Republican democracy are designed to protect minorities. I'm not necessarily talking about black or brown people. I'm talking about people that are in the minority as it relates to voting. And so we didn't want to have mob rule or just popular vote rule. The day we wanted to empower the states with some levels of rights and some levels of representations of the Senate is the mechanism for that. It is effectively two senators in Rhode Island, two senators in California, even though Rhode Island population is miniscule compared to California. Uh, James Madison, you write about James Madison and the book in the beginning, part of the book, uh, that explained the dangers of giving veto power to minorities potentially outweighed the benefits. Um, and so just for, for our listeners, step back for a second, tell us what you like about the Senate. Tell us what you dislike about the Senate and tell us about why the Senate was formed in the first place.
Adam Jentleson: (08:13)
Yes, yes. Yeah. It's, you know, the Senate was designed to protect minority rights. And when, like you said, when the framers were talking about minorities, they were talking about minority factions and specifically they weren't really thinking about vulnerable populations. They were more thinking about the status quo and, and the people in power. One of their overriding concerns was the threat of mob to property rights. They were basically afraid of the people
Anthony Scaramucci: (08:37)
They had to get these, they had to get these sob to ratify the constitution. So they needed each of those colonies, which were becoming states to do so. And so therefore this was an empowerment tool for that as well.
Adam Jentleson: (08:49)
Right, right. Fair enough. And, and, you know, I mean, I don't want to, you know, miss portrayed the Senate, it wasn't designed to be a of democracy per se. It was designed to be a bit of a break on the system, uh, and, and provide that protection to minority factions against the threat of mob rule. But the whole system itself was also supposed to provide that check, you know, that the checks and balances, weren't just the Senate. It was having a bicameral legislature having a judiciary and having a president. Um, and so it was the whole system that Madison designed that he saw as providing checks and balances. Even today, if you take the filibuster out of the picture, United States still has more checks and balances, what political scientists called veto players, uh, than any other modern democracy. So there are, there are a lot of checks even without the filibuster.
Adam Jentleson: (09:31)
Um, and I think that's good. The Senate should provide that check against majority mob rule. Um, it's a place where, you know, legislation goes to become more thoughtful, to be being debated more thoroughly to try to reach consensus. All that is very good. But with the framers were trying to do was strike a delicate balance. And we've lost that balance today. Um, as you said, Madison, who was sort of achieved champion of minority rights, wrote extensively about the importance of protecting minority rights, but he also very explicitly said that it was the goal is to provide the minority of voice in the process and a guaranteed role in the process, but never to provide them with detail. And he was explicit about this. He said, you know, when push comes to shove, basically I'm paraphrasing. Um, if, you know, consensus could not be attained, the majority should go forward.
Adam Jentleson: (10:19)
And he called the majority rule quote, the Republican principle, this was foundational for him. Um, and the reason it was, was that the framers had just had firsthand experience with what happens when you allow a minority to have veto power, because in the articles of Confederation, you know, the first draft of American government, the Congress in the articles had a super majority threshold for most major legislation. And it was a complete disaster. They couldn't pass anything. It crippled that emergent Republic during war time and they hated it. So they were very clear that they wanted to have checks and balances, but they wanted all decision points within that system to be majority rule, because they had seen firsthand that if you create a super majority threshold and by doing so, giving the minority veto power, because you know, 40% can, can stop. What, what 50% or up to 60% want to do, you're going to create a crippling system. So they call them. I mean, they, they said this explicitly. So that's, that's the balance that we're trying to strike. And we've tilted that balance far too far in the direction of giving the minority too much power.
Anthony Scaramucci: (11:19)
And the Republicans have taken advantage of this, of course, because they are in the minority. If you look at the voter registration, but yet states like north and South Dakota, they have the population of Manhattan, the island of Manhattan. Yet they have four senators between those two states. So the Republicans have figured out how to use these, uh, minority rules to their advantage Democrats from time to time have done as well. I'm not necessarily trying to pick on one group, what is a filibuster? Adam, tell our audience what a filibuster is.
Adam Jentleson: (11:51)
A filibuster is not what you think of when you think of a filibuster is not Jimmy Stewart standing on the floor, giving a long speech. At least it's not anymore. Right now all a filibuster is, is the ability of any individual Senator to raise the number of votes. It takes to pass a bill from a simple majority where it was for most of the sentence existence. And technically still is today, if you can get there. But, uh, what they're able to do is put a threshold higher than that majority today that had 60 votes in the path of the bills, passed the path to passage. And to throw that hurdle up, to throw that 60 vote hurdle up to every bill has to clear, uh, they don't have to debate at all. They'll don't have to go to the floor if they don't have to explain themselves, uh, they don't even have to make a public statement of any thought.
Adam Jentleson: (12:35)
All they have to do is send an email, became the other staff, just send an email to what's called a cloakroom, which was sort of the nerve center of power. Each party has one right off the Senate floor. When you see CSPAN or walking through those doors on the side, two of those doors lead to one leads to the democratic cloakroom one leads to the Republican cloakroom. So you just have your staff send an email and that automatically with one email makes a bill that should have a majority vote special for passage, go up to 60 votes. So that's all the filibuster is today.
Anthony Scaramucci: (13:04)
The Republicans do that on the current spending bill.
Adam Jentleson: (13:07)
Well, so there's one category, um, of legislation that is exempt from filibusters and that's anything that can go through this process called budget reconciliation. Um, this was a process created in the 1970s that was supposed to be sort of a fast track for budgetary procedures. Congress was trying to sort of take back power from the executive at this time. This was post-Watergate. And so they wanted to say the president had too much power. The president was setting the budget and the spending priorities for the entire government Congress was trying to take that power back. So they created a special, fast track procedure to make it really easy to pass anything budget related. Um, and then they made, and then people started using that fast-track for all sorts of things. So in the eighties, Robert Bird stepped in and said, here's a, here's a new set of rules that restricts what can go through this backpack. Uh, and the basic restriction is that a policy's impact has to have a primarily budgetary impact. And the person who decides that is one individual, the Senate parliamentarian and unelected person who, um, both sides, respect, but gets to make that decision unilaterally. And, you know, it's a pretty restricted definition.
Anthony Scaramucci: (14:09)
Oh, the Senate, the Senate parliamentarian and parliamentarian has now become famous again was once famous in 2001. Tell us a little bit about that and tell us why they're famous again today.
Adam Jentleson: (14:20)
Yeah. So in 2001, um, the Senate parliamentarian had a big role in deciding the control of the Senate and, um, uh, some big debates that are going on around around the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were going through reconciliation, this process, which put them in the spotlight. Uh, and so they had a big, big role to play there. And so basketball they're playing today, where the problem with debt with what Democrats are trying to do is that, you know, Republicans tend to use reconciliation for things that reconciliation was designed for like, like tax cuts. It's just, that matches up better with their policy agenda. It's easier for them to push tax best through a budgetary process than it is to push COVID eight or a minimum wage increase through a budgetary process. But just to demonstrate how restrictive this process can be, you know, minimum wage does have a major budgetary impact.
Adam Jentleson: (15:04)
There's no way to argue it. Doesn't right before this ruling came down, this congressional budget office came out with a report demonstrating, um, millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in budgetary impact for the minimum wage. But even that level of budgetary impact didn't meet the standard of reconciliation, which is it has to be primarily budgetary. So even though obviously a minimum wage increase would have a budgetary impact, it didn't rise to that level. And so that's how restrictive this process can be. So as people think about what else can move through it, I think people are trying to force climate change policies through immigration policies. I think now that we know where the parliamentarian stands, it's going to be hard to force these other policies through if minimum wage doesn't have a primarily budgetary impact. I think it'd be hard to argue that climate change policies or immigration have a primary.
Anthony Scaramucci: (15:50)
I think it's fascinating. I want to go back to the filibuster for a second, and then I've got some other follow-up questions about it, but you write in the book, uh, that a very, um, uh, Gus gentlemen, John Lewis, who's now deceased. He said that the filibuster is a Jim Crow Relic, uh, and the harm allowed by the filibuster extends far beyond Jim Crow. What did he mean by that? Uh, give us the historical context that he's speaking.
Adam Jentleson: (16:22)
So the filibuster is deeply rooted in historical efforts to oppress black Americans, uh, starting with the effort to preserve slavery in the 19th century, the chief innovator of what we would think of as the talking to the Buster, the Jimmy Stewart style filibuster was John [inaudible] who, uh, used it to increase the great
Anthony Scaramucci: (16:42)
New biography by the way about Calhoun out, uh, came out about two weeks ago.
Adam Jentleson: (16:47)
Yes. I really recommend asking any character that there should be a musical about him, but he would, would be an antihero. But, um, but he, you know, what happened was that the country was moving towards abolition and Calhoun could see that the majority of the country left to its own devices would abolish slavery eventually. Um, so he needed to increase the power of the minority to stop them from doing that. And so that's why he started to innovate the talking filibuster, but all through the 19th century, there was no rule that allowed the filibuster ERs to raise the number of votes it took to pass a bill. So the best you could do with this talking filibuster was to delay bills by giving a speech. And the way that we tend to think of what happened in the Jim Crow era. This is when senators figured out how to start using the filibuster to increase the number of votes it took to pass a bill.
Adam Jentleson: (17:35)
There was a rule put on the books in 1917 in response to a very embarrassing filibuster. The Senate was sort of humiliated when they filibustered to build their president. Wilson was trying to put through to arm American merchant ships. Um, there was a big public backlash, senators were being burned in across the country. So the Senate came back and said, all right, we need to give ourselves a tool to end filibusters when they get too extreme. So they created what's called cloture rule. And you can think of cloture as closure. It's bringing closure to a debate because every bill has to pass through this debate period before it gets to final passage. And if you're being filibustered, the only way to end that debate period is through a closure vote. Bringing closure to that, that vote was set at a super majority threshold. And the idea was that this would be a tool that senators could reach for if they filibuster was going on too long in a reasonable group of senators could come together and say, all right, that's it guys wrap it up.
Adam Jentleson: (18:25)
Let's move on to the final vote, which was at a majority festival during this period, Southern senators started using the filibuster and sort of grafting that super majority threshold onto the filibuster to apply effectively a super majority threshold only to civil rights bills, uh, civil rights bills between the end of reconstruction in 1964, where the only category of legislation that was stopped by this super majority threshold for 87 years. And I just want to make one last point on this, which is that we sometimes think that maybe America wasn't ready for civil rights until the late fifties and sixties, but the evidence shows otherwise, um, bills to end lynching bills to end poll taxes and bills to end workplace discrimination were passing the house of representatives by wide margins. They were coming over to the Senate where they had majority support and they had presidents of both parties ready to sign them.
Adam Jentleson: (19:17)
In fact, Republicans were much better on civil rights during this period than Democrats. Uh, the only thing that stopped them was the Senate filibuster. The American people wanted action on civil rights, Gallup polled, the issue of anti-lynching laws in 1937 and found 72% of the American people in support of anti-lynching laws. They pulled, uh, anti poll tax laws in the 1940s, and they found upwards of 60% of Americans in support. So we could have had action on civil rights decades before we started doing it. Uh, but the only thing that blocked it was the Senate filibuster,
Anthony Scaramucci: (19:49)
W w we're we're we're trying to figure out who the 28% is Adam, that that's, I guess for lynching, but I guess those are some of the people that stormed the capital, their descendants, or some of those people, but the reason, again, I think it's important to reference this. The reason why this book is so important is that I think that the average American particularly Americans that are managing money, like many of our viewers, they don't understand the system and the processes that are in place that are actually sludging up the ability for social progress, human progress, policy progress, uh, all of this Byzantine stuff that you're describing very clearly by the way, uh, is something that Americans need to know about so that they can, uh, help to force a change, uh, procedural or otherwise. So
Adam Jentleson: (20:41)
If I can just put on this Jim Crow air for one second, cause I think it demonstrates an important point, please. So, you know, so this was, you know, the early first half of the 20th century, right, where we built post-war America, we built the middle-class. We, we, you know, advanced a lot of the policies that GI bill, um, you know, building the highway system, all these things that we think of when we think of what made America great and allowed the middle class to pride, what's really important to think of during this period is that every other bill besides civil rights passed or failed in the Senate, based on whether it could secure a majority Medicare, uh, there was a great memo from LBJ, his top legislative aid writing to LBJ saying that he's confident Medicare is going to pass because he could count a majority of senators in support of it.
Adam Jentleson: (21:23)
After it was clear, it was going to pass a bunch more senators jumped on board and it got up to 70 votes, but Medicare needed to clear a majority to pass that skit. Uh, it never faced a filibuster. So only civil rights was the only category of legislation that was forced to clear a super majority threshold during the first half of the 20th century. So you look at the experience of every other issue and you look at civil rights, every other issue was dealt with in a relatively timely fashion, America faced the challenges that it fit, that it was facing successfully more or less on civil rights and failed today. We are applying the standard that we applied to civil rights to every other issue, every other issue, except for the budget stuff, except for yes. That's right, right,
Anthony Scaramucci: (22:03)
Right. Okay. So, so there's a couple of Democrats that want to keep this in place. Right? Joe Manchin is one of them. Um, what, what, why, why would they want to keep this in place?
Adam Jentleson: (22:14)
Well, I'm not totally sure, but I think if you asked your mansion, he would say that it's because of Senate tradition and bipartisanship, and there's
Anthony Scaramucci: (22:21)
An argument to my guest from Arizona is one of them as well, right?
Adam Jentleson: (22:24)
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think what they would say I'm trying to do, do their argument objectively is that the filibuster is the last thing that would help facilitate bipartisanship because by insisting that you need 60 votes in this era where neither party is likely to control 60 votes in the Senate, in any point in the foreseeable future, it forces you to have bipartisanship, uh, because by its very nature, you have to have some Republicans involved to get the sixties. Um, but I would argue that the filibuster is actually stifling bipartisanship because the 60 votes is a pretty much an arbitrary number that they arrived at through a series of reforms through the latter half of the 20th century. Um, and you see a lot of opportunity to maybe get a few Republicans on board with certain policies and get you to 52 53, you know, maybe even 55 votes.
Adam Jentleson: (23:14)
Um, but you can't get the 60. And it's the impossibility of getting to 60 in our polarized environment means by partisanship is never going to happen. I look at things like the vote to call witnesses and the Trump impeachment trial. You actually had five Republicans crossover and vote with Democrats on that. So that was a bipartisan vote. You only need to clear a majority in that case. So it's succeeded, but let's say you had that on an infrastructure bill and five Republicans crossed over and voted with Democrats and you have 55 votes for an infrastructure bill. That would be a great bi-partisan achievement, especially in this day age to get five Republicans to support it, but it wouldn't pass because you couldn't get to 60. So even though it seems like it would facilitate bipartisanship by setting a basically impossible standard, it's actually making it impossible to get anything done in stifling, real opportunities for bipartisanship.
Anthony Scaramucci: (24:00)
So at the same time that this is going on, um, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was instigated by your former boss. Uh, some of these confirmations that once required 60 votes are now down to the minor majority, uh, which was working well for Democrats. And then all of a sudden president Trump flipped it on him and it started working well for Republicans as it related to Supreme court justices and federal judges. Uh, tell us the history of that. Tell us what, uh, Harry Reed got right. And what he did.
Adam Jentleson: (24:30)
Yeah, sure. So this is, you know, th the debates are nominations in particular, judicial nominations go back to the 1980s. Some people would trace it to the fight over Robert pork's nomination under president Reagan. Um, and this was an issue, you know, both sides argued over under president Bush Republicans, uh, tried to go nuclear themselves to, uh, confirm some judicial nominees. Um, that was when this gang of 14 arose and, and sort of took the wind out of that, uh, effort and forced to compromise. Um, but this is sort of 2013. And Reed's decision was with the culmination of a decades long fight over nominations. What Reed was facing in 2013 was Republican obstruction that had gotten, uh, beyond any historical reference point of president Obama's nominees. And I'm talking about his judicial nominees and his nominees to cabinet positions faced that. Let me put this way.
Adam Jentleson: (25:19)
Half of all filibusters in American history against presidential nominees were waged against president Obama's nominees, the other half of filibusters against president's nominees where all of American history combined. So that's how bad it was. It was extreme. And so what we faced in 2013 was Obama just been reelected and nothing had changed. I think there was a brief period after his reelection where people thought the tea party fever would break. Republicans would start working with Democrats that wasn't happening. His nominees were still being obstructed. He was on track to have the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in any president since before Reagan. So we decided that the only thing he could do was to go nuclear effectively and lower the threshold to confirm nominees from 60 votes to the majority, um, where it is today. Um, he exempted Supreme court, uh, as the one category that would remain at 60 votes because we just simply didn't didn't have the votes for it.
Adam Jentleson: (26:10)
Um, but every other, uh, nominee the threshold came down to 15. What that allowed us to do was to convert, to confirm a wave of Obama, um, judicial nominees in a year and a half that we still have the majority from 2013 to 2014. And so that got Obama on par with all other precedents. If we hadn't gone, nuclear Obama would have left office with the fewest nominees since Reagan Trump would've arrived with even more, uh, open vacancies to fill. Now you could argue as some Hab that by going nuclear, we let Republicans more traditional knowledge. Um, that's a valid argument. I personally believe that if Democrats, if the filibuster for nominees it's still been in place and Democrats had been filibustering Trump's nominees in February, March of 2017 when he was still riding high, but Mitch McConnell would have gotten rid of that filibuster in a heartbeat, uh, and confirmed all denominations going to confirm anyway, and then we went to confirm this last wave of Obama nominees.
Adam Jentleson: (27:07)
So I happen to think that it was worth it because of the nominees that we were able to get confirmed, that the caudal would would've gone nuclear itself. We know that you values judicial nominees more than anything else. I think the idea that he would have, let Democrats stand in his way with the filibuster is unsupported by the evidence. Um, so that, that went through, if anything, I think that what we got wrong was not going far enough, uh, not lowering the threshold for Supreme court justices. He, he probably would have if he could have, but he couldn't get the votes. I like to think about how the Merrick Garland fight would have been different. If Democrats had only needed to get 50 votes to confirm Merrick Garland, instead of 60, it was very easy for McConnell to keep, you know, 14 Republicans from breaking away, um, and getting to 60.
Adam Jentleson: (27:47)
It might've been a lot harder for him to, to prevent only three or four Republicans that breaking way. So, you know, I think we should go further. I think a majority votes Senate, fundamentally benefits, progressives and liberals, more than Republicans as from a progressive perspective, but even from a healthy, balanced perspective, I think our country is in a good balance. When liberals come in and expand the social safety net, expand rights, uh, to new vulnerable populations, and then concern has come in and trim it back and cut back spending like that's a healthy balance, but right now our government can't get anything done. And we're failing to meet challenges like global warming and income inequality and all these things, and we're crippled as a country. And so we've lost that, that balance between the two sides.
Anthony Scaramucci: (28:30)
So, you know, listen, you're, you're excellent at explaining it you're even better at writing about it, by the way. I thought the book was phenomenal. I have one last question that I have to turn it over to the millennial, although gentle you look a little bit like a millennial to me too. So I'm probably going to get mad at you before this thing is over that you're right at the cusp of two young people's may smack your two heads together, but the, uh, the title kill switch, I think is a very effective title. Drew my eye calls me to order the book, frankly. Uh, and then once I got it, I started reading it and I became fascinated by it. Um, why did you title it kill switch? And what is the reception for this in Washington DC?
Adam Jentleson: (29:13)
Well, I titled the kill switch cause I was writing it in the basement and I was looking at the electrical box in the basement and thinking to myself, you know, what is something that shuts down a system and, you know, in your electrical box, there's that kill switch that shuts down the entire system. And that to me is what the Senate has become. Um, you know, we think of it as a cooling sauce or a place where good ideas go to be, you know, uh, cooled and, and developed thoughtfully. It's not bad anymore. Now it's a kill switch. It shuts down our entire system's ability to process change in a thoughtful, constructive, bipartisan way. Um, so that's how I came up with, with the title there. Um, their assumption honestly has, has been very encouraging. Um, I've been, uh, very pleased, not just with how it has been received by Democrats, but also received by a lot of conservatives.
Adam Jentleson: (29:57)
Um, uh, max boot, the conservative intellectual, uh, said that my book convinced him, uh, that filibuster reform was necessary. David, from a former Bush speech writer has written very positively about it in the Atlantic. Um, uh, so I I've been, I think people have engaged with the material in a thoughtful way. Um, I, my politics are on my sleeve. I write, I state that in the book. Um, but I tried to approach it objectively to give Mitch McConnell equal time to try to help people understand what makes him tick, not just slam him. Um, and the same with, with Democrats and Republicans throughout the era. I mean, you know, as I explained in the book, Republicans were much better on civil rights than Democrats for a lot of the 20th century. And I tried to give, give credit where do there. So I'm, I've been very happy with the way it's been received. Uh, I hope, uh, folks, if they're interested we'll, we'll um, give it a try. Uh, but I think it's, it's, it's gotten a good reception so far.
Anthony Scaramucci: (30:51)
I'm going to turn it over to John Dorsey. Uh, I hope a lot of the things that you're recommending do come to pass for the United States, that he'd be very beneficial. And I think what you're saying is very balanced in terms of the course corrections that are needed, but also the expansion of our society as it relates to social justice and more progress for people that for whatever reason have been left out of the society. And so, uh, you know, one of the books that, uh, I'm sure you've read or know about is Jola Poor's book, uh, which really writes candidly about the American historical achievements, but also some of the things that were setbacks, uh, for America as it's rising towards social progress. So, um, amazing book, uh, Adam, I got to turn it over to your fellow millennial. Okay. So he'll try to outshine me now, but that's fine. In the meantime, I'm sh I'm showing your book to hopefully stop him from outshining me. The book is fantastic. Go ahead, John Dorsey. Yeah. I mean,
John Darcie: (31:50)
It's an incredibly relevant book and I don't know that you wrote about it, uh, with foreshadowing of the context that we exist in today. So it couldn't have been more timely in terms of, uh, what's happening in Congress, but you talked about Mitch McConnell. So I want to go deeper into that, you know, from a distance I look at McConnell and it's hard to figure out exactly what does make him tick and what his end game is and what he really wants. You know, he's somebody who has as much as anyone prevented progress from the left, but he also has been critical of Trump. You voted yes on Merritt Garland's confirmation, uh, this week. And, and he's somebody who every once in a while, he throws you an olive branch to signal that maybe he's not unreasonable and he's not just an obstructionist, but what does make him tick? And what's the method in the madness,
Adam Jentleson: (32:38)
What them tick is a desire for power. Um, I think that's basically, and I don't even, I don't say that necessarily in a critical way. I think that was probably true of Senator Reed as well. Um, but, but what makes McConnell especially effective at what he does is that he's able to cloak that sort of naked drive for power in this sense of institutional preservation and tradition. And he's better at that than anybody I've ever seen. But what was interesting in the research for the book is you go back and you see that this was a pattern. And that folks like Richard Russell of Georgia, who was sort of the biggest champion of the filibuster, uh, in the middle of the 20th century and an a valid white supremacist, I don't use that term lightly, his own words. He stated that his, uh, he said, uh, any Southern man worth a pinch of salt would give his all to preserve white supremacy.
Adam Jentleson: (33:27)
Uh, he was very open about the fact that his mission in public service was to preserve white supremacy. So I don't use that lightly, that those were his words. He similar to McConnell, uh, was an expert at, at making massive power grabs and changing the Senate in, in big ways and strengthening the filibuster in his own time. But convincing everybody that he was doing it in the service of traditional John Calhoun in his own time, same thing. He was the first person to start grafting this idea of minority rights onto obstruction in saying, we're not obstructing, we're trying to preserve minority rights. So I see a line, um, throughout history from Calhoun to Russell to McConnell, uh, in that ability to advance your own political interests and change the Senate in ways that advantage you, but it convinced everybody, but you're doing it in the name of tradition. Um, so I think it's, it's that what makes him tick is that drive for power and what makes them effective at it is this ability to sort of present himself as, as an institutionalist, as he does it
John Darcie: (34:24)
And his dislike for Trump. Do you think that's born out of a sorrel sort of a moral objection to things that have happened, whether it be the insurrection or things prior to that, or do you think it's the fact that Trump threatened his sort of Supreme power over the Republican party and how it operates?
Adam Jentleson: (34:42)
I think that McConnell has a complicated relationship with Trump because I actually think he owes a lot to Trump. As I write in the book in the period between 2014 and 2016 McConnell was in trouble. He was, uh, the top target of the tea party, um, who had just ousted John Bainer as speaker in October of 2015. So this was a very credible threat and they were coming after McConnell and saying, you're next? And Mark Meadows, uh, Mulvaney when they were in Congress were quoted saying, we're coming after you McConnell. And so when Trump came onto the scene, you know, McConnell opposed him and as he to the primary, but once you got the nomination, McConnell realized that Trump, he could sort of draft in Trump's wake and Trump would protect his right flank. And so I have trouble crediting McConnell's objection is deeply moral because through most of the four years of Trump's rise and time and power McConnell did everything Trump wanted him to do.
Adam Jentleson: (35:32)
He protected him to the, to impeachment trials. He protected Trump. It sort of lost a memory, but when Trump made a major power grab to end the government shutdown and unilaterally ship funds in a massive violation of Congress's power of the purse, carnal backed, um, at the time that was the thing everybody said, this is going to be the break. This is what's going to cause McConnell to break with Trump didn't happen. Um, and then, you know, he did eventually come out and acknowledged Biden's win, but he, it took him a month. And so right after the election McConnell went to the Senate floor and said it Trump's challenges to the election were valid. And I think that institutional stamp of approval on Trump's challenges for a whole month, did a lot to signal to other Republicans that they should, uh, support the challenges. So I have trouble giving him credit for sort of late in the game, trying to sort of recoup some, some respect and credibility, uh, and coming out for Trump's. I don't, I don't credit it as moral. Unfortunately I think it's, you know, he was, he was right behind Trump winning advantage him, preserve his own power. And I think that's, that's sort of just how he, how he works.
John Darcie: (36:32)
So we talked earlier about Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kiersten cinema and Arizona being the two most noteworthy Democrats that are looking to preserve the filibuster because they think it will lead to some level of bipartisanship. But if you look at the stakes of current legislation, that Democrats are putting forth, like the John Lewis voting rights act, for example, uh, that would increase access to voting rights, uh, for future elections, cyclical forces indicate that Republicans could easily take back control of Congress in 2022, uh, in both both sides of Congress as well. Do they realize what's at stake? And how is the rest of the party trying to communicate and get through to them about the importance, especially at this moment in time, specifically of ending that Philip Buster,
Adam Jentleson: (37:17)
It's not clear to me that they understand what's at stake yet, but I think, I think they will be made to understand by the, by the, their, um, colleagues, because I think initially they thought they were going to come out. You're going to have to take the Stanford Senate tradition. I think they expected a lot of people to be cheering them on. I think they probably are a little bit surprised at how quick the consensus is formed against the filibuster. You have folks like David Brooks running column saying Democrats would probably get rid of it. I don't think they expected that. I think they expected to have more of a cheering section. And then in addition, I think they thought by standing in support of the filibuster, they will be opposing far left policies like Medicare for all the green new deal. Um, but it's very clear those things couldn't pass even in a 50 votes Senate cause Joe Manchin could vote against them.
Adam Jentleson: (37:57)
And that's that. Um, and, and what they're really standing away over must pass things for all Democrats like voting rights, uh, and other major pillars of the Biden agenda. So I think these four walls are sort of closing in on them in a way, because, you know, they're not standing against far-left policy, they're standing against the basic success or failure of the Biden administration and of all of their colleagues who were up on the ballot in 2022, you know, Mark Kelly, Kristin Sinema, his fellow Senator in Arizona is up again in 2022 because even though he just won election, it's a special election. So he has to run again. He needs accomplishments to win. He needs to be able to go to Arizona lawyers and say, look at everything we accomplished, especially to withstand the historical forces. You're talking about where the party that just won the white house usually loses the midterms.
Adam Jentleson: (38:42)
So I think at the end of the day, the pressure is going to build on them where their fellow colleagues and hopefully eventually the white house are gonna come to them and say, look, we've tried everything. We've exhausted all attempts at bipartisanship. Just look at this Republican party. If you think bipartisanship is just about the flourish, I don't know what you're smoking. Uh, and we got to get things done. So I think that's the pressure that's going to build on them. And I think within a relatively short amount of time, months, not years, that will become unbearable pressure for them. And I think you will see them shift. You've already seen mansion shift a little bit, I would think is very significant.
John Darcie: (39:15)
Right? Last question, before we let you go, uh, you can answer this one quickly, but we recently did assault talk to interview with Jonathan Allen of NBC and Amy Parnas of the hill. And they, based on the research they did for their book called lucky, which is about how Biden narrowly won the election. Their opinion is that Biden actually likes having mansion and cinema as a heat shield, he and other moderate Democrats, because they, it allows them to have cover, um, to not pass some of these more progressive pieces of legislation. Uh, but at the same time, they, they liked the idea of compromise and bipartisanship as well. Do you subscribe to that notion that Biden himself, uh, doesn't necessarily want rapid progressive, uh, legislation? Or do you think that's?
Adam Jentleson: (39:59)
I think, I think that's probably right. I think Biden is very comfortable in the middle. Um, I think some of the more, uh, lefty promises he made during the campaign, you'd be happy to see those fall away melt against the heat shield. But I think that what's going to happen is eventually, you know, it's going to become clear that it's not just the far left policies that are being blocked. It's the middle of the road policies too, like an infrastructure bill. And at that point, I think the conversation gets very serious about reform. And I think you can even expect to see the white house start to engage more seriously than because, you know, they love to see bipartisanship flourish agenda Saki at the white house press secretary said recently that it was their preference not to change the filibuster rules. Um, but you know, we all have our preferences and sometimes they don't happen. So I think what's going to happen is we're going to see that the filibuster is blocking not far left policies, but middle of the road policies too. And at that point, uh, I think the conversation is going to get very real about reform.
John Darcie: (40:52)
Well, Adam gentlemen, it's a pleasure to have you on salt talks. The book again is called kill switch. Anthony, if you want to hold it up, uh, one more time, again, extremely timely, given the environment we're in, in the conversation,
Adam Jentleson: (41:03)
Good for something on Dorsey's program. So that all Sears is a phenomenal book. I wish you great success with it. And you got to get your name and your voice out there because what you're offering is common sense solutions to some of the policy inertia and some of the policy Madness's out there. Uh, and I greatly appreciate reading it because it explained a lot of the reasons why we can't get anything done at them. So anyway, kill switch, Adam Jensen, uh, best of luck to you with the book. And, uh, hopefully we can get you to one of our live events, uh, when we get back out of the pandemic. It sounds great. It was great to be here, guys. Thank you very much.
John Darcie: (41:46)
And thank you everybody who tuned into today's salt. Talk with Adam gentlemen, author of a new book called kill switch about, uh, the Senate, how it was originally constructed and how it's operating in modern times. A fantastic again, very timely book. Just a reminder, if you miss any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes of salt talks, you can access our entire archive@salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these salt talks, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off for today from salt talks. We hope to see you back here soon.