Editorial: Ending the filibuster would still be a bad idea
As the latest and longest government shutdown approaches its conclusion, Congress faces the daunting task of assessing the financial and political repercussions of this impasse. Central to this situation is the filibuster, a procedural mechanism that has historically required a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate to end debate and advance legislation. In recent weeks, this rule has come under intense scrutiny, particularly as a Democratic minority utilized it to block spending bills, leaving Republicans, who control both legislative chambers and the presidency, to shoulder the blame for the shutdown. Following disappointing results in recent elections, President Biden has publicly urged Republicans to consider abolishing the filibuster, a move that has gained traction among party members eager to push through their legislative agenda without the constraints of a supermajority.
However, Republican leadership is wary of the potential consequences of eliminating the filibuster. Advocates for its removal argue that doing so would empower the majority party to implement its agenda more effectively. Yet, this could lead to a more unstable governance structure, where each party, when in power, could swiftly enact contrasting policies every few years. The filibuster, when used correctly, encourages bipartisanship and compromise, fostering a legislative environment that promotes stability and prevents radical shifts in policy. Critics of the current state of the filibuster note that it has been increasingly weaponized, effectively requiring supermajorities even for routine business. They argue that reforming the filibuster—rather than abolishing it altogether—could strike a balance between maintaining the spirit of the Senate and curbing habitual obstruction.
Several reform proposals have emerged, including requiring continuous debate from senators to maintain a filibuster or gradually lowering the cloture threshold. These suggestions aim to ensure that the Senate remains a deliberative body that values thoughtful debate while also addressing the need to reduce instances of obstruction. As James Madison articulated at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Senate should operate with “more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom” than the House of Representatives. In these polarized times, finding a way to balance majority rule with the need for minority input is crucial for the health of American democracy. The ongoing debate surrounding the filibuster underscores the complexities of governance in a divided political landscape, highlighting the need for thoughtful solutions that encourage collaboration 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)
