Editorial: Ending the filibuster would still be a bad idea
As the current government shutdown nears its conclusion, Congress finds itself grappling with the aftermath and the implications of the filibuster, a procedural mechanism that has shaped legislative dynamics in the Senate for decades. The shutdown, which has seen a stalemate over spending bills, has left Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress and the presidency, facing significant backlash. In the wake of disappointing electoral results, President Biden has publicly urged Republicans to consider abolishing the filibuster, a call that resonates with a faction within the party eager to streamline their legislative agenda. However, the potential repercussions of such a drastic move are complex and could lead to destabilization in governance.
The filibuster, which requires a supermajority of 60 votes to end debate on legislation, is seen by some as a hindrance to progress. Yet, its proponents argue that it serves a crucial role in promoting bipartisan cooperation and preventing extreme legislative swings that could occur with simple majority rule. The fear is that eliminating the filibuster would empower radical elements within both parties, leading to a cycle of alternating policies that could undermine long-term governance stability. For instance, while Republicans might push through tax cuts and immigration reforms, they would likely face a Democratic majority that could respond with sweeping expansions of social programs and other significant changes. This back-and-forth could result in a legislative environment characterized by volatility rather than consensus.
Despite the frustrations surrounding the filibuster, many experts suggest that reforming the procedure rather than abolishing it altogether could be a more effective solution. Proposals include requiring continuous debate from those filibustering or gradually lowering the cloture threshold, which would still preserve the essence of the filibuster while reducing its potential for abuse. As James Madison noted during the Constitutional Convention, the Senate was designed to operate with greater deliberation and wisdom than the House, and reforming the filibuster could help restore that balance. Ultimately, the challenge for Congress will be to navigate the current political landscape while ensuring that legislative processes remain stable and inclusive, fostering cooperation rather than division.
As the latest and longest government shutdown enters its denouement, Congress will be left to tally the costs and repair the damage. One thing to be thankful for: The filibuster, the procedural oddity that has constrained Senate majorities for decades, remains intact — for now.
As Republican frustration mounted last week, the procedure appeared to be in genuine jeopardy. A Democratic minority in the Senate had taken advantage of the rule — which generally requires 60 votes to end debate and advance legislation — to block spending bills and keep the government shut. Yet Republicans, who hold both legislative chambers and the White House, were taking the blame.
After the party got drubbed in last week’s elections, the president unsubtly aired his preferred resolution: “REPUBLICANS, TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER!”
Many in the party’s rank and file are tempted by the idea. They reason that doing away with the supermajority requirement would lift constraints on the president and allow them to advance the rest of their agenda by a simple majority. Many also perceive a first-mover advantage, on the theory that Democrats will surely do away with the filibuster next time they’re in control.
Yet, as Republican leadership appears to recognize, such a change is likely to do more harm than good.
Wielded appropriately, the filibuster should increase statutory stability, discourage radical agendas and prevent narrow majorities from enacting sweeping social changes. By encouraging the minority’s participation in the legislative process, it should also induce compromise and bipartisanship.
Eliminating it would run the risk of destabilizing governance, emboldening extremists and further centralizing power in leadership offices. Republicans might achieve some of their priorities — new tax cuts, immigration restrictions, voter-ID rules — but they should expect Democrats, once empowered, to enlarge the welfare state, expand the Supreme Court, create new states and so on.
In polarized times, the risk is that parties will take turns imposing diametrically opposed legislative agendas every few years.
That said, it’s undeniable that the filibuster has been abused in recent years, effectively requiring a supermajority even for routine Senate business. In response, Congress has carved out numerous exemptions to the rule, including for budget reconciliation and nominations. Ending the legislative filibuster, some argue, is the next logical step.
A better approach is to reform the procedure to prevent its abuse. There are many options for doing so: Require that senators hold the floor and keep up continuous debate. Gradually reduce the cloture threshold across successive votes. Instead of 60 votes to end debate, require 41 to extend it. Slash the threshold to 55 votes.
The goal should be to impose constraints on pure majority rule while limiting opportunities for habitual obstruction. As James Madison put it at the Constitutional Convention in 1787: The “use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.” Modern politics would benefit from each of those virtues.
Bloomberg Opinion Editorial Board/Tribune News Service
Editorial cartoon by Gary Varvel (Creators Syndicate)
