The Senate’s Plan: What Kind Of Nuclear Options Have You Witnessed?
Politics can play out everywhere, at every level of any kind of organization, in varying levels of severity and impact, from the most obvious and extreme positions to the sleight, unseen, or subtle plays, no matter the industry, field, or environment.
Lately, Washington has been the epitome of overreaching and dismissive authority for the sake of one’s own mission and cause, long-lasting consequences be damned.
A great example exists in the latest episode of the soap opera confirmation process of Neil Gorsuch as President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, which exhibits the irresponsible and haphazard turn politics of any kind can take.
In short, the Democrats in the U.S. Senate — the minority in that house –- are shooting to filibuster Gorsuch’s confirmation, frustrating and angering their legislative counterparts in the Republican majority, who are seeking to put into motion a more permanent retaliation against the filibuster process. The Republicans have enough votes to change the rules to now abolish filibusters against confirmation votes at the Supreme Court level — a step referred to as the “nuclear option.”
As this article states, the Democrats utilized the same option in the past, abolishing filibusters for votes when they held the majority themselves, although that was for lower court appointments. Now, years later, the tit-for-tat of revenge is within the Republicans’ reach, even though the stakes are arguably higher with the confirmations in question now being those to the Supreme Court — the highest court in the land.
So how far will people go to get what they want? How quickly will they change the rules – the face and landscape of their company or institution — merely to suit their own temporary needs, even if somehow in the future it will come back to bite them in the keister when the tables are turned?
Some do view this particular case as disrespecting a long-held, storied, and traditional procedure, as outlined by Lindsey Graham in the article.
Should we not weigh the stability of our institution – whether government or organization – when weighing options for action?
In this case, as stated in the articles, both parties are to blame for different reasons and at different points in the timeline, but how often is that the case, where one person or a contingent on a team, group, or organization is about to make a decision which will restructure the purpose, landscape and future stability of that group?
In general, besides the progress of an initiative, project, or assignment, which is temporary, how are your actions today dictating or impacting the makeup and ability of your organization in the future?
So…What About You?
- Do you take into consideration – real consideration – what the impacts will be of your actions today on your organization or entity at a time in the future when you are no longer there?
- What kind of decisions have you made which might have this level of procedural implications?
- Have you witnessed any such decisions by someone else and then watched as the repercussions played out later?