Ending Senate Filibuster, History Shows, Could Backfire for Republicans
Could the Senate’s tradition of almost unlimited debate wind up a victim of the GOP majority in Congress? That’s an emerging prospect, though far from a certainty as the government shutdown drags on.
Terminating the filibuster would mean that a simple majority of senators could pass legislation, as is the case in the House and in nearly all other legislative bodies across the globe. It would transform the Senate, which upon its inception allowed senators—also known as solons—to speechify without restriction.
Only in 1917 was a limit placed on senators’ loquacity, with a rule that a two-thirds vote could cut off debate, or invoke “cloture,” and move to final consideration. This rule was watered down in 1975 so that three-fifths of senators can halt debates.
The filibuster rule has come to denote the distinctiveness of the Senate and is one of the reasons the upper chamber has been hailed—perhaps mostly by its own members—as “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”
Yet, an unnamed senator told The Hill that failing to end the shutdown means the “pressure from the White House will become pretty enormous” to change the policy.
However, the majority leader, Senator John Thune, has poured cold water on that idea. Ending the tradition, according to Mr. Thune, would mean “every two years we’d have a flip-flop in policy, and it would be bad for the economy.”
Senator Thom Tillis shares this concern, fretting about “swings in tax and regulatory policy every two, four, or six years” if the Senate bids adios to the filibuster.
Aside from policy implications, ending the filibuster would also end colorful moments that have enlivened America’s politics—for better and worse.
For example, in 1841, Senator William King, then in the minority, used long speeches to oppose the return of a national bank. He famously told an irate Henry Clay to “make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter.”
In 1917, Senator Robert La Follette spoke up for free speech as World War I raged. Later, Senator Huey Long, while promoting populism, harangued the chamber with a recipe for “pot likker.”
Yet, in the 1950s, the rule was abused to thwart civil rights legislation, showing the filibuster’s potential for obstruction.
There is a degree of irony that the GOP is now considering ending the filibuster after defending it in the face of Democratic majorities who had sought to drop the custom.
In 2022, the opposition of Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema helped save the filibuster when liberals urged jettisoning the super-majority rule. This now prompts Senator John Fetterman to joke about his fellow Democrats: “We ran on killing the filibuster and now we love it.”
Indeed, past Democratic attempts to weaken the filibuster have backfired for the left. In 2013, Senator Harry Reid changed the rules to allow presidential nominations to be confirmed by a simple majority.
Then, to liberals’ chagrin, the GOP used that new policy to confirm three of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominees, helping cement a conservative majority that could endure for decades.
This unintended outcome for the Democrats suggests caution for GOP senators when weighing rule changes.
James Madison, after all, envisioned the Senate as a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” that can captivate the electorate.
The filibuster aligns with senators’ six-year terms—contrasting with the House’s biennial elections—insulating the upper chamber from fleeting trends and tempests, no matter how enticing.
https://www.nysun.com/article/ending-senate-filibuster-history-shows-could-backfire-for-republicans
You may also like
Leave a Reply