Editorial: Ending the filibuster would still be a bad idea
As the latest and longest government shutdown nears its conclusion, Congress faces the daunting task of assessing the economic fallout and mending the political rifts that have emerged during this tumultuous period. A key point of discussion is the filibuster, a procedural mechanism that has long shaped Senate dynamics by requiring a supermajority of 60 votes to end debate on most legislation. Recently, this rule has come under fire, especially as a Democratic minority in the Senate effectively utilized it to block spending bills, which contributed to the ongoing government closure. In the wake of disappointing election results for Republicans, President Biden has openly suggested that the filibuster should be terminated, a sentiment echoed by some within the party who believe that removing this legislative hurdle would allow for swifter passage of their agenda.
However, the implications of abolishing the filibuster could be far-reaching and detrimental to governance. While proponents argue that eliminating the supermajority requirement would empower the ruling party to implement its policies more efficiently, critics warn that such a move could lead to legislative instability and increased polarization. The filibuster has historically served as a tool for promoting bipartisan cooperation and preventing radical shifts in policy that could occur under narrow majorities. If Republicans were to eliminate the filibuster, they might succeed in advancing their priorities, such as tax cuts and immigration reforms, but they would also open the door for Democrats to pursue sweeping changes like expanding the welfare state or altering the composition of the Supreme Court when they regain power.
Rather than abolishing the filibuster altogether, some experts advocate for reforming the procedure to mitigate its abuse while retaining its essential role in the legislative process. Possible reforms include requiring continuous debate to maintain a filibuster, gradually lowering the cloture threshold, or allowing a minority of senators to extend debate rather than requiring a supermajority to end it. Such changes could strike a balance between enabling majority rule and preserving the Senate’s traditional role as a deliberative body. As the political landscape continues to evolve, finding a solution that fosters cooperation and stability could be vital in avoiding the cyclical pattern of extreme partisan agendas that has characterized recent years. As James Madison articulated during the Constitutional Convention, the Senate should embody “more coolness, more system, and more wisdom” than the more populist House of Representatives, a principle that remains relevant in today’s highly charged political environment.
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)
