Filibuster this

Why I think the filibuster, although occasionally maddening, should be kept

I realize that the argument I’m about to make is one of pragmatism more than principle which is usually not where I’d like to be. I don’t mean it’s unprincipled, just not primarily based on that…

A listener sent an email about the filibuster referencing this article: Let’s Get Our Filibuster History Right | RealClearPolitics

Part of the reason that I think we need the filibuster (at least in some form) is that, despite its use being occasionally maddening, we live in a time when our politicians are more venal than ever, more tribal than any time since the Civil War, more willing to abdicate responsibility and power to the executive branch than our Founders would ever have imagined, and – and this is the most important thing – least independent from the executive branch (if the same party has the presidency.)

In other words, we have too many lazy legislators who want only to get re-elected, who are politically rewarded for NOT compromising (in large part thanks to the devolution of “news” media from being reporters/journalists to being advocates who have made the business decision to engage in confirmation bias rather than honest conversation), who don’t protect the power of the legislature, and who – both because of dislike of taking responsibility and love of political reward for supporting the president of their own party or opposing the president of the opposite party just for the sake of doing so – regularly ignore (indeed seem not at all to know or care about) the (de)merits of a piece of legislation before voting on it.

This isn’t that new…it’s been going on since FDR really…but it’s accelerated massively in recent years and reached its peak of stupidity and dysfunction under Trump because Republicans are afraid of not supporting him and Democrats hate him so much that they won’t agree with him on anything even if it’s good.

And, of course, because Trump wants to function more like an emperor than like a president when he can get away with it. Congress should stop letting him or any other president get away with it. (A non-Trump example: Biden clearly broke the law when trying to reassign student loan debt to taxpayers which would clearly require an act of Congress. It was a huge question, dealing with a few hundred billion dollars, and members of Congress of both parties should have been very upset at the executive taking Article I powers for itself. But not a single Democrat got upset and, frankly, not enough Republicans did either.)

This means that if there are 53 Republicans and 50 or 51 support a bill, whether because they honestly do (maybe half) or they’re motivated by these other factors (the other half), without a filibuster the Senate will function almost exactly like the House. The Senate was designed to be different. The six-year terms, for example, are designed to cause/allow senators to be more deliberate and less moved by short-term “passions of the people” than representatives are. Indeed, our current system of direct election of senators was not the original design; they used to be chosen by state legislatures (which some people think would be better.)

Because of the low quality of so many of our politicians, eliminating the filibuster would have the effect of giving us two Houses of Representatives and that would further accelerate the stupidity of our politics and enhance the power of the executive, which is already dangerously high through excessive creation and delegation of power by Congress.

Much like one of my favorite lines, “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about”, I’ll suggest that the only thing worse than having the filibuster would be not having it.

I realize the filibuster isn’t in the Constitution, but I support it for these reasons even, as I noted, when its use can occasionally be maddening. Remember, at some point the foot will be on the other hand.

Finally, I do recognize that there is a significant chance that based on the dynamics above, and based on the particular antipathy among Democrats for restraining the growth of government and accumulation of power in the executive, they might eliminate the filibuster the next time there is full Democratic control of the federal government (or maybe even if the GOP controlled the House, though that’s not a very likely scenario). Some argue that the GOP should do it now because Dems will do it later anyway. That argument does not convince me, for all the reasons stated above.