Reforming—Not Abolishing—the Filibuster Could Improve Our Politics

Here’s a way to do it effectively.

By
42

The past few years have made clear that most of American politics—not just progressive politics—has become centered around identity and not governance. A recent New York Times piece by Stephanie Muravchik and Jon A. Shields documenting Rep. Liz Cheney’s primary loss drives this point home, noting that Republicans “are succumbing to the same impulses they associate with their liberal opponents: a shrill hostility to different viewpoints, an obsession with virtue signaling and a willingness to purge their own ranks.” So too with the increasing contempt that Republicans and Democrats feel for one another. As Jonathan Rauch memorably put it in National Affairs: “We are not seeing a hardening of coherent ideological difference. We are seeing a hardening of incoherent ideological difference. … What if, to some significant extent, the increase in partisanship is not really about anything?”

This uniquely abstract form of politics likely cannot go on forever, as the Times authors note, because “any party that elevates symbolism over governing risks stirring mass revolt down the road. … Results matter even in the age of identity politics.” But an awful lot of damage can be done in the interim before reality comes crashing down. 

Localizing more issues might help concretize our politics—to make it more about real policies than symbols, resentments, and identities. But even if our nationalized status quo doesn’t budge an inch, there are reforms to be had at the federal level—particularly in Congress—that could help make politics more about something again. 

One step that could work is to transform the Senate filibuster. Calls from the left to abolish the filibuster outright have become louder and more frequent, and are the result of frustration among progressives that they can’t easily push their agenda through Congress. Ending the filibuster altogether has its problems, but if done properly, reforming the filibuster could make it a tool for fostering a politics that is grounded more in issues and less in identities. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
42
By
Comments (42)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I tentatively like this suggestion. Although I’m hesitant given the uninetended consequences of reforms. I’d like to see more analysis of it.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Dustin Anglin

    It's an intriguing middle ground. While I am slightly more in favor of simply eliminating the filibuster, as a half step toward moving toward a legislature that actually legislates, I would definitely be for a compromise. Congress has absurdly over-corrected into becoming a politicians first, and legislators second, and while I don't think we ultimately want a country where the law wildly swings with the smallest of partisan tides, I think getting back to the business of making law will eventually settle to happy medium where legislators run on tangible policy agendas, and not pointless culture agendas.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Rajeev

    I always thought a better rule for the modern filibuster would be either 60 votes or 50 votes majority party +5 votes largest minority party. In our modern politics it is hard to pull more than a couple from the opposite party so if you have 50 votes from the majority and 5 votes from the opposition it should be sufficient.

    As a concession for this, I propose in both the house and the senate that once a year the minority party can force a vote on an issue they want a vote on. Make the majority hold tight against it. If only this feature was available we would have immigration reform where the House would've overwhelmingly voted yes on the bipartisan Senate bill in 2013.

    Collapse
  4. Peter Adams

    This is an interesting idea, but I think I still favor simply getting rid of the filibuster. It's not in the Constitution. What IS in the Constitution is three hurdles: pass House, pass Senate, signed by president. Three hurdles is already a lot. It's rare that one party controls all three at the same time. Making the Senate hurdle even higher with a filibuster just leads to dysfunction.

    Collapse
  5. Duane Truitt

    The presumption of the author is that most citizens want Congress to enact one sided controversial laws without compromise creating clear (if temporary) winners and losers. Certainly that is what the activist wingnut “bases” of both parties want. But that is not what most Americans want.

    Americans crave consensus, non-partisanship, and compromise that leaves no clear losers plotting their revenge. Americans love competition, and hate revolution. Any law that exists solely because of a one vote margin in the Senate is no law Americans want.

    But the knuckleheads controlling both parties refuse to compromise and are always seeking to not just defeat their opponents but to utterly destroy their opponents.

    The Founders explicitly designed a constitutional system with the objectives of forcing compromise and separation of powers and checks and balances such that America is governed by consensus not raw violent political power.

    As the famous quote goes, “The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves”. Today’s major political parties bear no resemblance to the big tent parties of most of our history that naturally moderated the “take no prisoners” mentality that prevails today.

    We do not need to fix our governmental institutions - we must fix ourselves and the major parties.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    I support the filibuster, and I believe that it should be applied in the House. I don’t want anything of importance to pass 217-216. The filibuster will insure that any major initiative gets the discussion it deserves.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Eston

    I don't think this idea works. A party with a bare majority, which holds that bare majority after an election, would cram through everything they want in a December lame duck session -- and then bring it back up a few weeks later for a final vote in January. Why would any party that "could" be in a minority status in the future allow that to happen?

    Second, what limit could there be for amendments to the bill in the January session? You'd have to eliminate the ability to amend the bill coming out of the December vote for there to be any chance of preventing trojan horses from taking advantage of this scheme.

    I don't have a problem with the filibuster, per se. "Passing legislation" is not necessarily a good thing, so brakes on passing bills that don't have a majority of support -- ideally with some bipartisan support -- is fine by me.

    What I do have problems with is 3 things: First, that apparently saying "I hereby filibuster" is enough to be "counted" as an endless filibuster. If the minority wants to stop a bill, they should filibuster -- stand up and read the phone book (if there are still phone books) or whatever until the point is made. If the bare majority really wants to get their bill through, then they need to keep the session going until the filibusterers run out of energy. In other words, both sides should do their jobs.

    Second, congress should return to normal order, and have hearings on proposed legislation. There should be plenty of time to hash out compromises, if possible, through the hearing and debate process. Maybe there won't be compromise, but at least the effort would have been made, in public, and subject to review by the public. This new process of "oh, Manchin agrees in principle, so let's vote on it" is ridiculous.

    Third, "everything" is not an appropriate topic for a piece of legislation. A bill should cover 1 topic. Separate topics should be separate bills. Attaching every stupid idea -- or even good ideas -- to a "must pass today bill" is nuts. There may be a bit of grey area in what "counts" as 1 topic, but I'd trust the parliamentarian who rules on what "counts" as a valid reconciliation bill topic to figure this out too.

    I agree with others that a better fix would be improving the caliber of the people seeking office in congress, perhaps by restoring the role of the parties in choosing candidates to sponsor under their party banners. Not limiting who can run, or the right of the voters to choose their representatives, just who can run as a "D" or an "R."


    Collapse
  8. GregS

    When Democrats control House/Senate/Presidency: "Abolishing the filibuster would be unprecedented, unconservative, dangerous and undemocratic!"

    When Republicans might control the House and Senate next year, and have a chance to control all three branches in 2024: "Lets talk about why the filibuster needs to go."

    Collapse
  9. Natty Bumpo

    I am open to this idea. I am not terribly fond of a flat removal of the filibuster, as I believe in the Senate's intended role as a deliberative body. But the 60 vote threshold is a bit steep and can result in no deliberation. Making the deliberation cross two Congresses is a reasonable feature and brings the electorate into the process (albeit for only 1/3 of the Senate). The possibility of making progress on some important issues makes this an attractive approach.

    Collapse
  10. Mathew A

    I think big changes need to be bi-partisan. If you can't get a fraction of the other side to agree with you, then it's probably bad policy.

    Moreover, plenty of bi-partisan legislation does occur. For example, bi-partisan infrastructure bill, and gun control bill passed through regular order.


    I think the much better reform would be ranked choice voting both in primaries, and in the general election.

    Collapse
Load More