Something New Every Day
Turns out the definition - and therefore the practise - of the Filibuster is rather looser in america than I had imagined? The dictionary defines the word thus:
fil·i·bus·ter
n.
I was prompted to look the word up because of something I read - can't remember where, and it was a week or so ago - which described my familiar understanding of it to be the "old-fashioned" meaning, to be quaint; and the piece went on to laugh at the suggestion Senators might be forced to resort to this archaic procedure?
To me, a briton, a filibuster is a parliamentary tactic in which one or two members opposed to a particular piece of legislation will, quite literally, talk it out of debate? They take the floor then refuse to yield it, except to co-conspirators, and will talk and talk for hours and hours - sometimes days - without interruption? It is a demanding and exhausting tactic that requires much preparation - imagine how difficult it must be to talk non-stop for twenty-four hours? Part of the fun, the joy, of the filibuster lies in the rhetorical contortions necessary to connect whatever subject is being spoken of at the moment - vacations in spain, say - to whatever piece of legislation is being bustered - The Defence of the Realm Act, or somesuch?
They are very rare in Britain but they do occur; and afterwards, no matter one's position, there is always a wary, grudging respect paid to those who filibuster successfully.
But here in America, it appears, things are quite different: the term applies to any deliberately obstructionist tactic that plays the rules against the progress of a Bill. Nobody seriously considers filibustering the british way.
So, I wonder, in a non-partisan honest-question way, how do they work here?
fil·i·bus·ter
n.
- The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
- An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.
- The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
- An adventurer who engages in a private military action in a foreign country.
I was prompted to look the word up because of something I read - can't remember where, and it was a week or so ago - which described my familiar understanding of it to be the "old-fashioned" meaning, to be quaint; and the piece went on to laugh at the suggestion Senators might be forced to resort to this archaic procedure?
To me, a briton, a filibuster is a parliamentary tactic in which one or two members opposed to a particular piece of legislation will, quite literally, talk it out of debate? They take the floor then refuse to yield it, except to co-conspirators, and will talk and talk for hours and hours - sometimes days - without interruption? It is a demanding and exhausting tactic that requires much preparation - imagine how difficult it must be to talk non-stop for twenty-four hours? Part of the fun, the joy, of the filibuster lies in the rhetorical contortions necessary to connect whatever subject is being spoken of at the moment - vacations in spain, say - to whatever piece of legislation is being bustered - The Defence of the Realm Act, or somesuch?
They are very rare in Britain but they do occur; and afterwards, no matter one's position, there is always a wary, grudging respect paid to those who filibuster successfully.
But here in America, it appears, things are quite different: the term applies to any deliberately obstructionist tactic that plays the rules against the progress of a Bill. Nobody seriously considers filibustering the british way.
So, I wonder, in a non-partisan honest-question way, how do they work here?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home