The Senate's Rules Have Allowed a Lone Senator to Decapitate the U.S. Military. I'm Thinking Those Rules Need to Change.
PLUS: A review of David Fincher's "The Killer"
Tommy Tuberville is a weapons-grade knucklehead.
When Tuberville isn’t busy questioning the validity of the 2020 election or defending white nationalism, the college-football-coach-turned-Republican-United-States-senator is single-handedly holding up the promotions of over 370 400 high-ranking military officials, drawing the ire of both Democrats and Republicans. This has been going on since February. The only officers to win confirmation in that time have been the Chief of Naval Operations, the Air Force Chief of Staff, and the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, and that only happened because a bipartisan group of senators initiated a time-consuming confirmation process after the acting commandant of the Marine Corps was incapacitated by a heart attack.
Why, you may ask, is weapons-grade knucklehead Tommy Tuberville doing this? Because he opposes a new policy instituted by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin that reimburses service members for their travel expenses should they have to leave the state they are stationed in to seek an abortion. Now, we can certainly debate the merits of such a policy, but that’s kind of beside the point, since all but maybe one of the positions Tuberville is blocking would have no say whatsoever in determining or changing this policy. It’s as though Tuberville is mad his high school principal won’t buy his football team new jerseys so he’s preventing all the students in the school from moving up a grade.
So yes, the upper echelons of the United States military are significantly understaffed right now because Tuberville is throwing a hissy fit. But rather than focus on why Tuberville is doing this or the real-world consequences of his actions, a good question to ask is how he can do this. Tuberville, after all, is only 1 of 100 senators. It would seem the 99 other senators (or if not 99, then the overwhelming majority) could gang up on him and overrule his hold. In both math and democracies, 99 > 1.
That is, except in the United States Senate, which operates under the rule of unanimous consent. According to this rule, the Senate may only proceed to the consideration of a bill so long as there are no objections to proceed; in other words, every single senator must be onboard with a motion to proceed. If a single senator objects, the motion is denied, and senators then debate/discuss the motion. Another Senate rule allows for unlimited debate, so after a senator objects, they can talk for as long as they like on the motion. Senators can break a hold by either a.) Forcing the senator to hold the floor until he or she collapses from exhaustion; or b.) Invoking cloture, a time-consuming process that requires 60% of senators to sign-off on a petition that then forces the Senate to consider the matter and, if passed, puts a time limit on debate.
It’s hard to imagine how exactly this works when it’s only one senator out of one hundred holding things up, but remember the power of a hold isn’t merely based on a senator’s ability to slow down consideration of a single bill but on a senator’s ability to use that hold to grind the business of the Senate to a halt. An angry senator can start putting holds on all sorts of motions and talk about those motions for hours, either throwing the Senate off-schedule or keeping the Senate open deep into the night and requiring a working majority to be on hand to spring into action as soon as the speaking senator cedes the floor. These problems are compounded if the objecting senator has buddies who can back him up. Additionally, invoking cloture is a days-long process and locks up the Senate’s schedule. For example, if Tuberville only talked for two hours about every military promotion he put on hold, he would end up speaking for the equivalent of over one month. Therefore, because there is so much business before the Senate, when a senator indicates he or she plans to place a hold on a piece of legislation, the majority leader usually tables that legislation and moves on to less time-consuming bills.
The purpose of the unanimous consent rule is to allow individual senators to momentarily pause action on a bill so they can have more time to review it. It’s essentially a courtesy extended to senators. But since the 1970s, senators have increasingly used the rule to single-handedly stop bills from advancing through the Senate. It’s easy to see how that empowers not only the minority but small cliques of senators. As Tuberville demonstrates, it’s also a way for a senator to take the Senate hostage by preventing the chamber from conducting business until his policy demands are met.
Tuberville’s blockade has agitated members of both parties. A few weeks ago, after negotiations with Tuberville went nowhere, a handful of Republican senators took to the floor to compel him to stand down. He refused. Now Chuck Schumer has a plan to bunch the 400 promotions into one big bill and go to the mats against Tuberville. But it won’t be easy. First of all, the rump of Republican senators standing up to Tuberville is relatively small. They want to make sure there’s a mass of Republicans beyond the bare minimum of nine needed to invoke cloture to make sure they have cover as they work with Democrats on an issue related to abortion.
More significantly, though, is that while Schumer’s bill has passed the Rules Committee, no Republican—including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell—supported it. McConnell opposes the DoD order Tuberville is protesting, but also believes those military vacancies should be filled. He’s open to supporting Schumer’s bill. McConnell’s concerns are instead procedural. McConnell is an institutionalist who opposes circumventing the traditions of the Senate (sorry, I had to step away from my computer for a minute there) by making end runs around rules that protect the prerogatives of individual senators. McConnell thinks Tuberville’s tactics are ill-advised, but he also wants to preserve a senator’s right to use those tactics. Other Republicans have voiced similar concerns and are worried about what sort of precedent Schumer’s bill may set. Tuberville ally J.D. Vance (R-OH) said, “It’d be a huge mistake to change the character of the U.S. Senate just because you have a personal grudge against Tommy Tuberville.”
Granted, I called Tuberville a “weapons-grade knucklehead” at the beginning of this piece, but it’s not personal, just a casual observation. More importantly, though, it seems to me this notion that the Senate is a sacred institution whose rules and character must always be preserved above all else is a bunch of hooey. Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota made a great point this past week when she said, “You know what sets a bad precedent? When one guy, against the better wishes of nearly everyone in his party, has decided to hold up the entire military chain of command… So no one better be competing with me about what [are] bad precedents.” So, yeah, if you want to talk about precedents, which precedent matters more: A staffed and operational military command structure or a rule that allows one wacko senator to make a mockery of “the world’s greatest deliberative body” by effectively shutting the Senate down?
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, authors of the must-read How Democracies Die, have published a new book this fall titled Tyranny of the Minority. Levitsky and Ziblatt are experts on how democracies either thrive or fail, and they are particularly concerned about the well-being of American democracy. The concern they articulate in this book is that the United States’ political institutions possess many counter-majoritarian features that advantage political minorities. In democracies, majorities are supposed to rule; in America’s democracy, they often don’t or struggle to do so. That, they argue, is a recipe for democratic breakdown.
Of course, one principle of democracy is that while majorities rule, minorities retain rights. For instance, a majority that takes control of government cannot outlaw the minority party or prevent opposition parties from participating in future elections. Still, despite retaining rights, political minorities should not be able to rule in place of majorities or prevent political majorities from ruling.
According to Levitsky and Ziblatt, however, many features of the United States’ government allow that to happen. For instance, due to the Electoral College, the candidate who receives the most votes for president is not guaranteed to become president, a circumstance that has happened two out of the seven times I have voted in a presidential election (2000 and 2016). Gerrymandering can significantly distort legislative representation so that parties that receive fewer votes overall in legislative elections still win control of legislative chambers. An unelected Supreme Court can overturn laws enacted by congressional majorities, a problem that is even more acute today since three members of the Court (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) were appointed by a president (Trump) who did not win the popular vote and confirmed by a group of senators who, taken together, did not come from states whose populations constituted a majority of the American people. Even amending the Constitution, which most would argue should take more than a simple majority, is a multi-step process that requires multiple legislative supermajorities and the assent of numerous small state-level constituencies.
When it comes to counter-majoritarianism in American government, however, the Senate is a prime offender. Because its membership is not proportional to the American population and based instead on equal representation among the states (thus violating the “one person, one vote” rule) the citizens of low-population states have an outsized influence in the chamber. (For instance, Wyoming’s population is about 577,000 while California’s is nearly 39,000,000 but both states have the same number of senators.) Senate rules like unanimous consent, unlimited debate, the filibuster, and holds grant not only political minorities but individual senators significant leverage over the chamber and in some cases an effective veto over a political majority’s agenda.
Taken together, this means less than 20% of the American population can constitute a senate majority, and filibusters can be sustained by senators representing only 11% of the population. The current composition of the United States Senate reflects this trend as well: Republicans hold 49% of Senate seats but represent only 42% of the American population. Democrats have won every six-year popular vote cycle in the Senate since 1996-2002 yet Republicans controlled the chamber for most of that time. For Democrats to win control of the Senate, they need to outperform Republicans by about 5%, but even then, the filibuster prevents them from getting much of anything done. (Republicans, of course, must also contend with the filibuster when they’re in the majority.)
Some argue counter-majoritarianism is a good thing because it compels compromise. That overlooks how much compromise already ordinarily occurs within parties as they craft legislation and how compromise is a necessity when different parties control different parts of the government (which is more the rule than the exception.) Additionally, counter-majoritarianism often doesn’t lead to compromise but rather obstruction, resulting in a government that struggles to respond to public problems or popular demands. Voters often end up criticizing the party in power for their failure to act when in reality it’s the minority gumming everything up. If democracy is a way for citizens to hold the powerful accountable for their actions, then we shouldn’t want a system of government that makes it unusually hard for citizens to figure out who is responsible for political outcomes.
Levitsky and Ziblatt make a convincing argument that these counter-majoritarian features of American democracy are outdated and ought to be reformed. Their fear is that reactionary political minorities can exploit such features to gain power and then secure their hold on power by undermining democratic institutions. That particular aspect of their argument isn’t very convincing, however. It’s not that such a scenario isn’t possible or even likely, but that reactionary political movements also sometimes win political power as legitimate electoral majorities. (For an example, consider Israel’s current government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.) When that happens, counter-majoritarian political systems have the potential to check and balance the actions of toxic reactionary officeholders. As maddening as it often is, there is something to be said for the separation of powers.
As I see it, though, the rise of reactionary movements, wannabe authoritarians, democratic backsliders, or whatever you want to call them has more to do with social factors that destabilize the status quo (i.e., increased diversity, economic stress, rapid cultural change, etc.) and the erosion for whatever reason of civic and political norms. For instance, the reason over 400 officers have not had their promotions confirmed by the Senate may not be because the Senate is a counter-majoritarian institution but because it counts a weapons-grade knucklehead among its members. In fact, a weapons-grade knucklehead could probably push even a well-designed majoritarian political system to its breaking point if he wanted to. (The names Donald Trump and Matt Gaetz spring to mind.) Consequently, the norm-based arguments Levitsky and Ziblatt make in How Democracies Die are more convincing.
That does not mean, however, that the reforms Levitsky and Ziblatt propose—which include dramatically overhauling the Senate by eliminating the filibuster and holds—aren’t good ideas. They’re actually long overdue. The reason they are good ideas is that they make the United States’ antiquated political system more democratic and reflective of the nation’s population. It also makes the Senate more responsive and accountable to the people, as majorities that don’t find themselves constantly stifled by weapons-grade knuckleheads like Tuberville can more easily build a positive legislative record voters can evaluate them on.
A single weapons-grade knucklehead shouldn’t be able to impede the work of the Senate and the majority tasked with conducting its business. No single senator should be that powerful. If we were to recreate the Senate from scratch today, we would never incorporate the unanimous consent rule and holds into its design. People can harp all they want about traditions and the character of the Senate and the need to uphold precedents. The problem is that the traditions and precedents currently associated with the Senate are completely out of step with democracy, which is the principle worth conserving above all others.
Newly published by the Washington Post: “The Hidden Biases at Play in the U.S. Senate”
Signals and Noise
By Michael Tomasky for The New Republic, on Don Trump’s use of the word “vermin” to describe his political opponents: “This is straight-up Nazi talk, in a way he’s never done quite before. To announce that the real enemy is domestic and then to speak of that enemy in subhuman terms is Fascism 101. Especially that particular word.” Biden linked Trump’s language to Nazi rhetoric as well. MORE: “I’m Starting to Think Donald Trump is Sounding Like Hitler on Purpose” by Alexandra Petri of the Washington Post and “Trump Crosses a Crucial Line” by Tom Nichols of The Atlantic
Shelby Talcott of Semafor reports, “Privately, Trump aides admit that having their candidate’s name in the same sentence as Hitler and Mussolini this week isn’t a positive. But they also see some upside as well: More media attention amplifies his attacks — one Trump advisor said seeing ‘vermin’ next to Democrats in cable news chyrons was an ‘effective message’ — and provides an opportunity to rally supporters by accusing the press of playing up the outrage.”
Trump gushed over Chinese leader Xi Jinping at a rally in Iowa, stating he admires Xi for running China with an “iron hand” while Biden is “stupid” by comparison.
“The thing about Donald Trump is that he lacks the character and the moral center we desperately need again in the White House. … I am afraid he would break more things than he fixes. He is a hot head by nature, and that is a dangerous trait to have in a Commander in Chief.”—House Speaker Mike Johnson in 2015 on Facebook, explaining why he did not believe Don Trump was fit to serve as president. Johnson’s concerns have not been disproven, but he is now a devout Trump supporter.
Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel said the RNC will support Don Trump as the party’s nominee even if he is convicted a felon.
The judge in Trump’s classified documents case seems to be working to delay his trial past the 2024 election.
Trump’s rivals in the Republican primary are beginning to go after his mental acuity.
Business mastermind Don Trump’s social media network Truth Social has lost $73 million since its early 2022 launch.
The Washington Post reports MAGA-dominated state parties are descending into chaos.
According to a Financial Times/University of Michigan poll, only 14% of voters—and only 24% of Democrats—think Joe Biden’s presidency has left them better off financially.
By Nate Silver: “If Biden Can’t Run a Normal Campaign, He Should Step Aside”
By Perry Bacon Jr. of the Washington Post: “Biden Shouldn’t Run. The Democratic Field is Stronger Than You Think”
Jim Messina, Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign manager, tells Biden-skeptics like me to stop worrying.
Jonathan Martin of Politico has a comprehensive plan for “How Biden Can Turn It Around”
Matt Viser of the Washington Post investigated the ways Hunter Biden used his family name to advance his career but found no evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter’s business endeavors.
The No Labels Party threatening a third party run against Biden and Trump is flush with big donor cash. It’s also considering charging supporters $100 to attend their nominating convention.
Let’s get you up-to-date on the government funding drama playing out on Capitol Hill:
The House passed a continuing resolution that keeps the government funded through the first few weeks of the new year. Funding levels remain the same as those authorized when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker. Speaker Johnson’s “big move” was creating two new “laddered” (do these guys know what a ladder is?) shutdown deadlines for different parts of the government. Johnson couldn’t come close to getting a majority of Republicans to go along with his plan (let alone the procedural votes to get it done) so the Democrats again came to his rescue. Democrats were initially skeptical of the bill, but rallied to it when they saw it maintained current levels of funding. Still no Israel/Ukraine/Taiwan funding.
Philip Elliott of Time found a surprise buried in the funding bill: A $300,000,000 cut to the Justice Department, which would hinder its ability to investigate and prosecute the hundreds of insurrectionists who took part in the 1/6 Capitol riot.
In a sign of how unserious people regard Johnson’s “laddered” approach, Republican South Dakota Senator Mike Rounds said, “If it makes the kids happy, then what the heck? It’s Thanksgiving, and you know what? If you want to eat your dessert before you eat your turkey, that’s fine. But it will make it a bigger problem down the road.”
House Republicans exacted their revenge by opposing a subsequent rules vote on a run-of-the-mill spending bill. That’s what hardliners did to McCarthy when he cut a deal with Biden to raise the debt ceiling last spring. Johnson is more trusted among hardline House Republicans than McCarthy, but this is an ominous sign.
Note Johnson’s plan isn’t really any different than what got McCarthy canned a month and a half ago. So House Republicans have basically been clowning around for the past six weeks with nothing to show for it. They can’t work with one another and don’t want to work with Democrats, but end up needing to get Democratic votes to govern (and when they do govern, it’s just kicking the can down the road.) And what the holdouts want to get passed would just get ignored by the Senate anyway, so most of what they’re fighting over doesn’t have a chance of becoming law regardless.
See Carl Hulse for the New York Times: “[A]s speaker, Mr. Johnson was forced to bow to the political reality that spending proposals designed to appease the far right cannot become law in a divided government. In doing so, he exhibited a pragmatic side that surprised Democrats and frustrated allies on the right who just days ago were exultant at his sudden rise.” The question for me is what exactly Johnson is holding out for.
Daniel Lippman of Politico reports House Speaker Mike Johnson is a board member of a right-wing Christian publisher whose founder and CEO has stated “monkeypox” is “an inevitable and appropriate penalty” for being gay and that former President Barack Obama could be the Antichrist because of his “leanings toward Islam.”
The House Ethics Committee released a damning report about Republican Rep. “George Santos.” Santos announced he won’t be running for re-election, but it appears his days in Congress are numbered. (I’ll believe it when I see it; with these slim majorities, Republicans may feel they have no choice but to keep him around.) Mariana Alfaro and Maegan Vazquez of the Washington Post have a breakdown of the most scathing allegations in the report, which include using campaign funds at OnlyFans, Ferragamo, and a casino. His own campaign even encouraged him to get counseling given his tendency to lie.
During a House hearing, Nutso Republican Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins accused FBI Director Christopher Wray with no evidence other than a picture of some busses at Union Station of bringing “ghost busses” full of FBI agents to the January 6 insurrection. When Wray denied the charge, Higgins told him, “your day is coming.”
In
news:
Check out Republican Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin actually rise up out of his chair during a Senate hearing to challenge a Teamster who can legitimately claim the Twitter handle @TeamsterSOB to a fight. Thankfully, 82-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders went all Jules from Pulp Fiction on Markwayne to get him to chill, going so far as to remind him he is a United States senator rather than an MMA fighter. Pop some popcorn for this one. (Probably should mention the hearing was about the success unions have had lately in negotiating better contracts for their members.)
Republican Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett accused Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy of elbowing him as they passed one another in hallway in the Capitol. Burchett was one of the eight GOP House members who voted to oust McCarthy. Burchett described the blow as a “clean shot to the kidneys.” McCarthy denied it, saying, “If I would hit somebody, they would I know hit them.” (I think he knows, Kev!) Voice of reason/professional troll Matt Gaetz wants the House Ethics Committee to investigate.
Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene called Republican California Rep. Darrel Issa (ah, remember the days when Issa was about as kooky as Republicans got) a “pussy” on Twitter for criticizing her for lacking the “maturity and experience” necessary for bringing a proper impeachment motion to the House floor. Greene also said in a post that Issa lacks a football emoji, a basketball emoji, a baseball emoji, a tennis ball emoji, and an 8-ball emoji, which is actually three more emojis than most men have.
And now for a live look-in at the Republican House Conference meeting:
“One thing. I want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing. One. That I can go campaign on and say we did. Anybody sitting in the complex, if you want to come down to the floor and come explain to me, one meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done.”—Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy on the floor of the House
Me: Yes, Hermione, do you have an answer to Rep. Roy’s question?
Hermione: They’ve done this ⬇Dennis Aftergut of The Bulwark links these congressional kerfuffles to Trump’s penchant for violence. (He also takes a swipe at the funny little retort that Congress shouldn’t be in session for more than 3-5 weeks for this reason. Are congressional Republicans aware most Americans hang around the same people for more than 3-5 weeks straight without punching one another?)
For the record, Congress has only passed 21 bills so far this year. That’s the worst pace since the Hoover administration and even lower than the “Do-Nothing Congress” Harry Truman ran against in 1948.
For more on the testy mood of the Republican-led House, see “‘Same Clown Car With a Different Driver’: House GOP Goes Off the Rails” from Politico.
And just to follow-up on Markwayne Mullin’s run-in with the Teamsters: Mullin told FOX News afterwards that he believed people wanted him to react that way and that his actions were representative of “Oklahoma values.” But in other Oklahoma news this week, Republican Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt endorsed the work of an Oklahoma special interest group that wants to legalize cockfighting in the state. The vast majority of Oklahomans oppose legalizing cockfighting. So I’m confused. Are Mullin and Stitt on the same page when it comes to “Oklahoma values” and public displays of violence? Or do Oklahomans actually disapprove of both cockfighting and political fisticuffs? Or maybe Mullin is right and Oklahomans don’t tolerate fights between roosters but are open to fights between grown men during legislative proceedings? I don’t know.
The Supreme Court has adopted a code of ethics. It seems unclear whether it has teeth or not.
Texas passed a law that would allow state law enforcement officers to deport undocumented migrants. Arizona tried something similar in 2012 (the “show me your papers” law), but the Supreme Court ruled such powers belonged to the federal government.
Nick Corasaniti of the New York Times reports Democrats are targeting a handful of state legislative districts in Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Wisconsin to thwart those states’ Republican legislative supermajorities.
The Washington Post has published an oral history drawn from investigative reports chronicling 11 high-profile mass shootings involving AR-15s and the devastation such weapons leave behind. NOTE: The article contains graphic and disturbing photographs and videos from these incidents. Images of dead bodies are not included in the article, but there are many bloody images.
Elon Musk agreed with an anti-Semitic post on Twitter (which he owns) claiming Jewish people encourage “hatred against Whites.” That’s the same rhetoric used by the shooter at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh.
Sarah Nassauer and Suzanne Kapner of the Wall Street Journal report retailers are declaring the end of the era of price hikes, which would be good news for consumers heading into the Christmas season. Walmart is even hinting a period of deflation is on the horizon.
If gas prices stay where they are right now, they will be the lowest they’ve been for a Thanksgiving holiday since 2020, when few people were driving much of anywhere due to the pandemic.
Robert Socolow and Chris Greig write in the Washington Post about how to get the fossil fuel industry to buy into efforts to end carbon emissions: Not by eliminating the use of fossil fuels, but by eliminating fossil fuel emissions. MORE, from Shannon Osaka of the Washington Post: “The Lego-like Way to Get CO2 Out of the Atmosphere”
Israel raided Gaza’s largest hospital. Hamas has bunkers and storage facilities on the hospital’s grounds.
The U.S. has brokered a deal between Israel and Hamas to pause the conflict for a few days and free some hostages.
The Telegraph reports Iran has told Hamas it will not join the war with Israel and expressed frustration Hamas did not tell Iran about its plan to attack Israel.
A PBS/NPR/Marist poll found that while most Americans support Israel, they are increasingly distressed by Israel’s handling of its war in Gaza. Additionally, growing numbers of Americans believe the U.S. should adopt a more isolationist stance when it comes to world affairs.
Ukrainian forces have claimed a foothold on the southern bank of the Dnipro River. Russia was relying on the river as its main line of defense in this area. It remains to be seen if Ukraine can turn this development into significant territorial gains or if they will struggle to hold the land.
According to David Sanger of the New York Times, an interesting dynamic emerged from Biden’s summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping: For the first time in years, the Chinese needed something from the United States, which led to some quick deal making and some significant wins for US diplomats.
Conservative UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is facing a rebellion in his ranks after sacking anti-immigrant Home Secretary Suella Braverman, bringing former PM David Cameron back into government, and scrambling to pass a new immigration law after the UK Supreme Court threw out his migrant deportation plan. With the UK heading toward a general election next year, the rebellion has the potential to shatter an already weakened Conservative Party.
By Ross Anderson, for The Atlantic: “Did Humans Ever Live in Peace?”
Vincent’s Picks: The Killer
“Stick to your plan. Anticipate, don’t improvise. Trust no one. Never yield an advantage. Fight only the battle you’re paid to fight.” This is the mantra an unnamed assassin played by Michael Fassbender (Prometheus, X-Men: Days of Future Passed, Steve Jobs) recites to himself prior to executing his missions. He takes pride in his professionalism and is meticulous in his preparation. He’s an ideal contractor who has never failed a client. Until now.
That’s the hook of The Killer, a new film by David Fincher now streaming on Netflix. Hired to take out a target who is expected to spend a night in a Parisian penthouse, the assassin instead shoots a woman who slips into the path of the bullet. The assassin flees the scene, but he worries his error has made him a loose end. In short time, those suspicions are confirmed, and he sets out to do something about that.
The Killer is a minor Fincher film. It doesn’t reach the cinematic heights of Se7en, Zodiac, or The Social Network, and isn’t as thrilling or adventurous as popcorn movies like The Game and Panic Room. That’s fine, though; Fincher shouldn’t be expected to deliver at that level every time he makes a movie. Instead, The Killer, based on a French graphic novel, is more of a character study that revisits themes he developed earlier in films about serial killers and wealthy entrepreneurs.
Fassbender’s hitman is something of a stock character: The steely, unfeeling killer who operates with the efficiency of a well-tuned machine. Like other iterations of this character, he is in peak physical condition, possesses a razor-sharp mind, and is extremely disciplined. But he is also hauntingly normal, so ordinary in fact that his presence barely even registers with those around him. That’s what makes these types of characters so haunting: Anyone of us could be walking down the street and encounter someone like Fassbender’s assassin without knowing he is a professional killer until, in a split-second and with no emotion, he finishes us off. Their mundanity works as camouflage. He’s no different than any other Joe Schmo we meet. But then again, maybe that mundanity—that utter lack of anything that would distinguish him as an individual—is what should have tipped us off. Either way, it’s a chilling prospect.
We meet the Killer when he’s already on the job holed up in a Paris office building with his eye on his target’s penthouse. Here’s the view:
That image reminded me of another shot from Fincher’s oeuvre:
That’s from the conclusion of Fight Club (1999), Fincher’s look at how capitalism and consumerism breed (or maybe feed?) toxic masculinity. Seeing that shot above from The Killer, one can’t help but think Fassbender’s unnamed assassin is not far removed from Edward Norton’s unnamed narrator from Fight Club. Both operate in the world of professional capitalism and live comfortable bourgeois lives. The difference is that Norton’s narrator felt emasculated by that world and rebelled against it while Fassbender’s killer found capitalism amenable to his primal masculinity. Channeling Adam Smith, the Killer advises the audience, “Each and every step of the way, ask yourself, ‘What’s in it for me?’ This is what it takes. What you must commit yourself to. If you want to succeed. Simple.” Greed is good. Furthermore, like a good social Darwinist, the Killer states only the strong survive in such a ruthless world: “ From the beginning of history, the few have always exploited the many. This is the cornerstone of civilization. The blood and mortar that binds all bricks. Whatever it takes, make sure you’re one of the few, not one of the many.”
That’s also a Nietzschean sentiment. The main character’s penchant for aliases from 1970s and 1980s sitcoms aside, the Killer is a very 19th century guy. His utilitarianism is on display when he visits one of France’s 1,500 McDonald’s to acquire cost-effective (in his words) “protein.” His dispassionate, rational, regimented approach to his work recalls positivism. (“My process is purely logistical, narrowly focused by design. I’m not here to take sides. It’s not my place to formulate any opinion. No one who can afford me, needs to waste time winning me to some cause. I serve no god, or country. I fly no flag. If I’m effective, it’s because of one simple fact: I. Don’t. Give. A. Fuck.”) It all leads to a Nietzschean rejection of conventional morality—no empathy for others, no justice, no God, just a supposedly uninhibited perception of the Truth and the will to power. Yet while Nietzsche, utilitarianism, and positivism positioned themselves in one way or another against unfettered capitalism in the 19th century, they actually end up abetting the capitalist impulse by reducing humans to statistics, to sheep, to means to other ends. To targets. Fassbender’s Killer thrives in this capitalist environment.
Initially, it seemed to me Fincher was telling the story of an Übermensch assassin who was losing his touch. There are multiple signs throughout the film to suggest this is what’s happening. That would have been an interesting theme to develop: What happens when someone who has mastered their world and, by extension, believes they have mastered the universe begins to slip?
But it was when Tilda Swinton appeared and told the Killer a joke about a hunter and a bear that I realized what was really going on: Our hitman has grown bored with his work. “It’s the idle hours that most often lead a man to ruin,” he tells us earlier in the film. Now, those idle hours that he had disciplined himself to endure are beginning to break him. Like Edward Norton’s narrator in Fight Club, the demands of the cold capitalist work ethic have after all this time left him empty and unstimulated. Whatever rush he once got from his cutthroat line of work—whatever primal need it filled—just isn’t there anymore. Like that narrator, he needs to find a way to get his juices flowing again. Thus the moral of The Killer: The only thing more dangerous than a capitalist is a bored capitalist.