It Really Is Time to Get Rid of the FilibusterBreaking News
tags: filibuster, Senate, democracy
The filibuster has been under bipartisan assault for some time. The practice survived the 2005 standoff, but in Barack Obama’s second term, Harry Reid, who was then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, abolished its use against the nomination of most Administration officials and lower-court judges. In 2017, Mitch McConnell, as the Republican Senate Majority Leader, won the abolition of the filibuster in the review of Supreme Court nominees, paving the way for the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. In other words, the filibuster now survives only as a vehicle to derail legislation—and precisely the kind of ambitious legislation that Biden hopes to pass if elected President. Democrats have a decent chance of winning a majority in the Senate in November, but it’s extremely unlikely that they will win sixty seats. So, under the current rules, the Republicans would be able to stymie the Democratic agenda with forty-plus votes.
The very existence of the Senate is an affront to democracy. California, with forty million people, and Wyoming, with five hundred and seventy-nine thousand, are both represented by two senators. But the filibuster is an even more egregious insult to the principle of majority rule. It gives veto power to forty-one senators who may well represent significantly less than forty per cent of the population. (Even though the Democratic caucus in the Senate includes only forty-seven members, they represent many more people than the Republican majority.) It is true that the Framers intended the Senate to be a slower-moving institution than the House—the cooling saucer, in George Washington’s perhaps apocryphal phrase—but there is no evidence that the Framers wanted paralysis. Several Democratic senators, such as Jeff Merkley, of Oregon, have been agitating against the filibuster for some time; and some moderates, such as Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, have expressed skepticism about the idea of abolishing it. The risk, of course, in doing away with the filibuster is that it may turn around and hurt the party that sponsored its demise if that party’s political fortunes change. In the first two years of Donald Trump’s Presidency, when Republicans also controlled the Senate and House, Senate Democrats found much to admire in the filibuster rules, and they employed them with regularity.
But it’s past time to recognize that the filibuster needs to go. Ultimately, filibusters are always going to hurt Democrats more than Republicans, because Democrats are the party of activist government. Democrats, as a rule, want more new laws than Republicans do, and the filibuster will always serve to thwart change. During this campaign, Biden himself has come to recognize that the filibuster has become a toxic force in government. (Barack Obama, also a former senator, recently joined the call to end the practice.) Abolishing the filibuster is certainly a risk for Democrats, but it’s one worth taking for the simplest of reasons: it’s the right thing to do.
comments powered by Disqus
- A Gold Rush Town Removes a Noose From Its Logo
- U.N. Panel Calls British Report on Race a Repackaging of ‘Tropes’
- Richard Wright’s Newly Restored Novel Is a Tale for Today
- From Rodney King to George Floyd: Reliving the Scars of Police Violence
- Stuck At 435 Representatives? Why The U.S. House Hasn't Grown With Census Counts
- 'The Making Of Biblical Womanhood' Tackles Contradictions In Religious Practice
- Choosing Empire: America Before And After World War II
- Heeding the Lessons of Weimar
- Before the Civil War, New Orleans Was the Center of the U.S. Slave Trade (Excerpt)
- ‘If We Don’t Adapt, We Will Wither Away’: Louis Menand on the University