Why Not Kill the Filibuster?

I'm amazed at the handwringing and pearl clutching going on by Senate Democrats over what to do about the filibuster.

The Democrats have the razoriest of razor thin margins in a Senate evenly split between the two parties, with a simple majority when the Vice President, serving as President of the Senate, casts her vote. But nothing can be done because of the legislative dodge known as the filibuster, with which a single senator can completely stop any regular legislation with a simple phone call saying, in essence, "I don't like this." The problem is that the procedural motion of "cloture" is required to end a filibuster, and the invocation of cloture requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate ... utterly impossible in the face of a solid wall of Republican opposition to anything the administration wants to do*. 

In theory, the filibuster is a procedural device which allows representatives of the minority to delay action on controversial legislation to give them time to negotiate for their interests. In practice, however, it has allowed the minority to exercise absolute control over the legislative agenda by punitively blocking all regular legislation. It was a favored tactic of racist senators earlier in our history to block civil rights legislation, and this was its primary focus for much of the first two-thirds of the last century.

It has been pointed out by those who study such things that, of a total US population of approximately 330,000,000 in 2020, the 50 Democratic senators represent 41,549,800 more people than do the 50 Republican senators**, and yet routine use of the filibuster to block legislation gives them outsized power.

The filibuster is not - as is sometimes claimed by its proponents - enshrined in the Constitution, but is a creation of the Senate itself. Nevertheless, its use as a tactic goes back as far as the First Congress in 1789, as this overview by the Senate Historical Office points out. Because it is a procedural device created by the Senate, it can be modified ... or eliminated ... by a majority vote in the Senate.

This, some Senate Democrats appear to be afraid of doing. This goes beyond the personal political caution of Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia (a deep, deep red state) and Krysten Sinema of Arizona (a state which may be slowly purpling) to include others who fear the loss of the only defensive tool they may have in a future Republican-controlled Senate.

I don't find this to be a particularly persuasive argument. President Biden's agenda appears to be extremely popular with the majority of Americans, according to reliable polling data, and is opposed by Republicans for exactly that reason. They are afraid that if the Biden agenda is enacted, average Americans will realize the advantage of having a government that actually works in their favor, rather than one which advantages big business and the wealthy ... and will vote accordingly. Given the political machinations of Senator Mitch McConnell both as Majority and Minority Leader, can there be any doubt that he would eliminate the filibuster in a heartbeat if necessary?

Reform of the filibuster is a possible option, perhaps by allowing the invocation of cloture with a simple majority rather than a two-thirds supermajority, but even this is unlikely given the inflexible opposition to President Biden by Senate Republicans.

It's time for the Democrats in the Senate to show some spine and pull together to kill the filibuster and move forward with an agenda for the American people.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

 

Bilbo

* Let us not forget that it was Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who said he was completely focused on stopping the agenda of President Biden, regardless of how much the American people as a whole may approve of it. What he actually said was, "One-hundred percent of our focus is on stopping this new administration ... We're confronted with severe challenges from a new administration, and a narrow majority of Democrats in the House and a 50-50 Senate to turn America into a socialist country, and that's 100 percent of my focus."

** It's worth remembering that many of the Senate Republicans represent conservative states which are very large in area, but relatively small in population ... the makeup of the Senate which gives each state two seats regardless of population therefore - as the framers intended - favors the interests of states with smaller populations to balance out the advantage in the House of the larger states.