Editorial: Ending the filibuster would still be a bad idea
As the longest government shutdown in recent history approaches its conclusion, Congress faces the daunting task of assessing the fallout and repairing the damage caused by legislative gridlock. A significant point of contention during this crisis has been the filibuster—a procedural mechanism that requires a supermajority of 60 votes to end debate on most legislation in the Senate. This rule has historically served to moderate legislative actions and encourage bipartisan cooperation, but its recent exploitation by a Democratic minority to block spending bills has reignited debates about its future. Amidst rising Republican frustration, President Biden’s call for Republicans to “terminate the filibuster” highlights the growing divide within the party regarding this contentious issue.
The temptation for Republicans to abolish the filibuster stems from a desire to streamline their legislative agenda and avoid the blame for the ongoing shutdown. Many within the party believe that eliminating the supermajority requirement would empower them to push through key initiatives, such as tax cuts and immigration reforms, with greater ease. However, Republican leadership appears to recognize the potential long-term consequences of such a move. Abolishing the filibuster could lead to a cycle of extreme partisanship, where each party, once in power, swiftly enacts sweeping changes that could destabilize governance. For instance, while Republicans might succeed in enacting conservative policies, Democrats could retaliate by expanding the welfare state or altering the structure of the Supreme Court when they regain control.
Despite the arguments for reforming or abolishing the filibuster, many experts advocate for reforms that would preserve its core functions while curbing its misuse. Proposals include requiring continuous debate to maintain a filibuster, gradually lowering the cloture threshold, or modifying the rules to require a smaller majority to extend debate. These reforms could strike a balance between preventing legislative stagnation and ensuring that minority voices are heard. As James Madison noted during the Constitutional Convention, the Senate’s role is to deliberate with “more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom” than the House of Representatives. In these polarized times, restoring those virtues could lead to more stable and effective governance, benefiting all Americans in the long run.
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)
