Editorial: Ending the filibuster would still be a bad idea
As the longest government shutdown in recent history begins to wind down, Congress is faced with the daunting task of assessing the fallout and strategizing for future governance. At the center of the political storm is the filibuster—a procedural mechanism that has long required a supermajority of 60 votes to advance legislation in the Senate. This rule has come under intense scrutiny as Republican frustrations grow, especially after the party suffered significant losses in recent elections. In a pointed call to action, President Trump suggested that Republicans should “terminate the filibuster,” a sentiment echoed by some within the party who believe that eliminating this legislative hurdle could pave the way for a more straightforward advancement of their agenda, including tax cuts and immigration reforms.
However, party leadership appears to be wary of the potential consequences of such a drastic move. While the filibuster has indeed been used to obstruct routine legislative business, its elimination could lead to a more volatile political landscape, where the majority party swings wildly between opposing agendas with each election cycle. The fear is that without the filibuster, governance could become increasingly unstable, empowering extremist factions within both parties and centralizing power in the hands of party leaders. The editorial highlights the importance of the filibuster in fostering compromise and ensuring that minority voices are heard in the legislative process. This perspective draws on historical insights, referencing James Madison’s vision for the Senate as a body that operates with “coolness” and “wisdom,” qualities that are essential for effective governance in today’s polarized political climate.
Instead of outright abolishing the filibuster, the article suggests a more measured approach: reforming the procedure to prevent its misuse while still preserving the essence of bipartisan cooperation. Proposals for reform include requiring continuous debate from senators or gradually lowering the threshold needed to end debate. These changes aim to strike a balance between allowing majority rule and safeguarding against habitual obstruction, ensuring that the Senate remains a deliberative body that encourages thoughtful legislation rather than a battleground for partisan warfare. As Congress navigates the aftermath of the shutdown and contemplates the future of the filibuster, the challenge will be to foster a legislative environment that is both efficient and reflective of the diverse interests of the American populace.
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)
