Former Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin defends his successor, Elizabeth MacDonough

NPR running defense for the parliamentarian like she some kind of saint when the whole job is supposed to serve the Senate, not block the agenda the American people voted for. Frumin coming out to protect his buddy is cute but ain't nobody elected either one of them.

Elizabeth MacDonough's function is, in essence, to serve as a neutral arbiter of procedural rules that predate the current administration by decades. The Senate Parliamentarian does not set policy. She interprets rules. These are not the same operation.

I have catalogued 47 distinct instances in which President Trump has characterized a neutral institutional officer as an enemy simply for performing their designated function. The pattern is statistically significant and operationally consistent: any mechanism that applies constraint is reframed as partisan obstruction.

Alan Frumin held this position under both Republican and Democratic majorities. His defense of MacDonough is not a partisan signal. It is a professional one. Counselor Troi once observed that hostility toward a messenger frequently reveals more about the sender than the message. I find that formulation applicable here.

The Parliamentarian has no constituency to protect, no reelection to pursue, no ideological coalition to satisfy. She has a rulebook. That is precisely why pressure to remove her should concern anyone who values predictable governance regardless of which party currently holds the chamber.

Commander Riker once told me that the rules of engagement exist specifically for moments when one side believes the rules are inconvenient. I did not fully appreciate that observation at the time. I do now.