Editorial: Ending the filibuster would still be a bad idea
As the longest government shutdown in recent history begins to wind down, Congress faces the daunting task of assessing the fallout and repairing the damage caused by the impasse. Central to this discussion is the filibuster, a procedural mechanism that has historically required a supermajority of 60 votes to advance legislation in the Senate. Despite recent frustrations from Republicans, who hold a majority in both legislative chambers and the White House, the filibuster remains intact for now. This preservation comes as a relief to some, who argue that the filibuster plays a crucial role in maintaining legislative stability and encouraging bipartisanship.
Last week, tensions escalated within the Republican Party as they faced backlash for the shutdown, particularly after disappointing results in recent elections. President Biden’s call for Republicans to “terminate the filibuster” reflects a growing sentiment among some party members who believe that abolishing this procedural hurdle would allow for a more streamlined legislative process. However, GOP leadership appears to recognize the potential long-term consequences of such a move. Eliminating the filibuster could lead to a cycle of extreme legislative swings, as each party takes turns imposing their agendas without the checks and balances that the filibuster provides. This could embolden radical elements within both parties and centralize power in the hands of party leadership, undermining the collaborative spirit that the Senate was designed to foster.
While there is a clear argument for reforming the filibuster to prevent its abuse—such as requiring continuous debate or adjusting the cloture threshold—simply abolishing it may not be the best solution. The filibuster has been increasingly used as a tool for obstruction, making it difficult to pass even routine legislation. However, reforms could strike a balance between preventing legislative gridlock and ensuring that the minority party has a voice in the process. As the nation grapples with unprecedented polarization, it is essential that Congress finds a way to restore order and promote compromise, echoing the sentiments of Founding Father James Madison, who envisioned the Senate as a body that would proceed with “more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom” than the House of Representatives. The future of the filibuster—and the stability of American governance—hangs in the balance as Congress navigates these challenging waters.
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)
