In 2021, one of the most divisive debate topics has been the Senate filibuster. The filibuster can take on many different forms, but what is commonly talked about is how a filibuster can prevent bills from proceeding if they don’t have 60 Senators voting for it. Right now, most Democrats and liberals would love to see it gone 100%. Currently, most Republicans, conservatives, and some moderate Democrats want this rule protected to limit polarizing legislation from passing with just a simple majority.
I’m going to go over some bad arguments for ending the filibuster.
- “The Jim Crow Filibuster”
You hear this a lot from liberals how the filibuster is a “relic of Jim Crow” or “The Jim Crow Filibuster.” Even one anti-Trump conservative organization (which I normally sympathize with) I saw relate the filibuster to Jim Crow.
Now yes, it’s true the filibuster was used by southern segregationist Democrats many times during Jim Crow to filibuster and basically kill civil rights bills and even anti-lynching bills. One prominent example of this is the Lodge Force Bill in 1890. Proposed by Congressman Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA) and sponsored by Senator George Hoar, (R-MA) the bill would have closed loopholes in the 15th Amendment that White Democrats in the South used to keep Blacks (most were typically Republicans in those days) from voting. Blacks were for most part during this period unable to vote for members of congress or for President. Despite having the support of President Benjamin Harrison, (a Republican) it was filibustered by southern Democratic Senators. Vice President Levi P. Morton did very little to help get this passed because of complicated politics of “trading votes.” Silver Republicans whom favored bimetalist monetary policy in the West tried to woo Southerners into supporting their interests and some in the North tried to woo Southerners to support the McKinley Tariff. Both of these laws were not only bad in my opinion but such a terrible thing to try to get done by trading away energy for civil rights. Some historians give Vice President Morton, whom was Presiding over the Senate bad marks for this in what was otherwise a very obscure Vice Presidency. This would be the among the first of many decades of filibustering in the Senate until about 1965 when a bipartisan Voting Rights Act was signed by President Lyndon Johnson. (Interestingly enough, a Democrat from Texas)
https://reference.jrank.org/populism/Force_Bill_1890.html
But has the filibuster only been used to keep down Civil Rights? Nope.
When the Republican Party tried repealing the Affordable Care Act. (ObamaCare) The Senate parliamentarian declared certain items of the repeal needed 60 senators to vote for it. It only had support of 51 Senators initially, and there was not majority support to include it in reconciliation. Democrats essentially filibustered most of ObamaCare’s repeal.
Republicans also famously filibustered President Bill Clinton’s 1993 health care proposal. There were also some Democrats who did not support it and instead proposed their own plans. It’s kind of strange I’m easily able to find health care as being a common thing that gets filibustered, but no less, these are examples of non-Civil Rights related items where the filibuster has been used.
Tying a multi-purposed thing to Jim Crow is just a bad argument because we can see modern examples of health care filibusters that have nothing to do with segregation. To make an even simpler argument, humans breathed oxygen during Jim Crow. Should we get rid of that too? Of course not.
2. Short-Sighted Desires to get Biden’s Agenda through while Ignoring Long-Term Consequences.
Now, I understand when we elect a new President, many people want to see quick change. Politics for better or for worse is a little more complicated than that.
I have a friend in Boston who I’ve known since I was a kid. For the sake of privacy, I’m just going to refer to this person as James. Though officially an independent, James is pretty liberal these days, and voted for Biden. (He also voted for Sanders in the last two primaries) He’s frustrated about “gridlock,” and wants to see most Trump administration stuff reversed. He’s frustrated with the filibuster and just wants it gone. I try to explain to James how the Democrats will probably not have the Senate forever. We don’t live in a one party system nationally which means the Republicans or some other party will one day take over. I argue that a filibuster (while occasionally frustrating) can do some good because it can stop a majority from doing anything too fast without broad support. While James realizes the political reality that his side won’t be in charge forever, he can’t even really formulate a response or see the point in doing filibuster reform rather than abolition. He simply can’t think about Republicans in (say) 2028 getting back the Senate and not having a filibuster because he wants the Democrats to have that wiggle room to do whatever they want right now. I can’t imagine a hard Right Republican Senate with no filibuster would appeal to him.
Yes, there has been times in the last 10–15 years when both parties (and most recently the Republicans) have suspended the filibuster for their own short-term gains. But just because previous congresses have made this error, doesn’t mean we should continue with this disorder in the Senate. Ending the filibuster just creates precedence for future Senates to do whatever the heck they want without putting anything into a conference report to compromise.
Now my friend James to his credit at least recognizes some reality in politics. Some other liberals online have their heads in the clouds. When warned Republicans will come back and take advantage of no filibuster. They respond by saying “Not if we organize and just get people to get out and vote in 2022!” That’s nice wishful thinking on their part and all, but it’s not realistic. Be it ’22, ’24, or 2032, something is going to happen that will make the Democrats unpopular enough that gets them voted out of power. Even the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt wasn’t immune to Dwight Eisenhower thanks to an unpopular war in Korea. Even the Republican Party, the party that defeated the Confederacy was not immune to Grover Cleveland thanks to political corruption within the GOP. A party can only last so long. Don’t give yourself so much power in politics, that you wouldn’t want your opponent to have the same power. That includes the filibuster.
3. “Hey Sinema! Vote Like a Democrat!”
So, Senators Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) are being harassed (in some cases literally) for not going with their party 100%. The thing they hate the most is that these two have no interest in getting rid of the filibuster. Sinema is in a light Red/Purple State and Manchin is in a state that is now very Red and was even Trump’s best state in 2016. They both know they can only appease the national party so much without it annoying more conservative voters back home. The filibuster is the biggest issue liberals have with them right now. Ending the filibuster is almost like a litmus test for being a true Democrat.
These two Senators are probably being pragmatic, or they truly are careful about going too fast on certain government reforms. On these issues, I sympathize with them. I think protecting long-term legislative stability goes beyond partisanship.
Conclusion:
The Senate filibuster is a lot like issues such as the Electoral College. When one side is not benefitting from it, it’s easy to crap on it, and throw the baby out with the bathwater if it means getting short-term gains even while ignoring long-term consequences. Some voters have short memories, and don’t think critically enough to understand what certain actions could mean for the long-term. It’s all about “Now! Now! Now!” with some people. Maybe that kind of voting behavior is why we are in so many problems as a republic these days.
I think if people are so frustrated by the filibuster, why not reform it to 56 Senators down from 60 to make it slightly easier to pass something? Or maybe reform reconciliation rules that haven’t been updated since the Nixon Administration? This could be a constructive conversation to have. Instead, we’re getting a My Way or the Highway mentality. Either no filibuster, or 60 votes are needed to pass anything in the Senate. If that is the binary choice, I’ll take my chances with keeping the filibuster.
