Editorial: Ending the filibuster would still be a bad idea
As the longest government shutdown in recent history begins to wind down, Congress finds itself at a critical juncture, tasked with assessing the fallout and addressing the underlying issues that led to this impasse. At the heart of the debate is the filibuster, a procedural tool that requires a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate to advance most legislation. The shutdown was exacerbated by a Democratic minority exploiting this rule to block spending bills, leaving Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress and the White House, facing significant backlash from constituents. Following disappointing election results, President Biden publicly urged Republicans to consider eliminating the filibuster, igniting a heated discussion within the party about the potential benefits and pitfalls of such a drastic move.
Many Republican members are drawn to the idea of abolishing the filibuster, believing it would enable them to push through their legislative agenda with greater ease. They argue that without the supermajority requirement, they could swiftly implement policies such as tax cuts, immigration reforms, and voter ID laws. However, Republican leadership warns that this change could create a dangerous precedent, leading to a cycle of extreme policy swings as parties alternate control. The fear is that eliminating the filibuster would destabilize governance, empower fringe elements within both parties, and centralize power in party leadership, ultimately undermining the legislative process that encourages compromise and bipartisanship.
While the filibuster has indeed been misused in recent years, prompting calls for its reform, experts suggest that rather than abolishing it outright, Congress should consider modifications to prevent its abuse. Possible reforms include requiring continuous debate to maintain a filibuster, gradually lowering the cloture threshold, or imposing a requirement that a minority must actively extend debate rather than simply blocking legislation. Such changes could help strike a balance between preventing legislative gridlock and ensuring that minority voices are still heard, aligning with the original intent of the Senate to foster deliberation and wisdom in governance. As the political landscape continues to evolve, finding a middle ground on the filibuster may be crucial in restoring stability and functionality to the legislative process.
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)
