Is the filibuster a safeguard of democracy? Does this Senate policy of unlimited debate help as the New York Times said, “fend off actions of a bare majority of the Senate, but deeply offensive to the minority.”? Or has the filibuster become a political tool used by the minority party to prevent the majority party from effectively governing the country? Since the election of 2008, the Republican Party, with only 41 members, has used this tactic more than 130 times, forcing 112 cloture votes; doubling the Democratic Party’s record during its times when it was the minority party. The use of the filibuster can bring legislative business to a standstill. Since we are in such dire economic times, some feel the need for the government to act quickly and decisively. This group sees the filibuster as an impediment to effective government. As a result, reporter Karen Tumulty argues it may time to finish the job that Henry Clay proposed back in 1812—abolish the filibuster rule in the US Senate. Is that a prudent step for American democracy? Is the filibuster the problem with our legislative gridlock? I am not sure.
I, too, am frustrated with the lack of action taken by Congress over the last year. But I also understand the principle of checks and balances so dear to our “founding fathers”. The intention of the filibuster was to “slow down” the law-making process to insure the rights of the minority were not trampled by the majority. Certainly James Madison would have concurred. It was he, who believed in “majority rule, but with minority rights”. The tyranny of majority rule can be as oppressive as any form of government. When used sparingly and for the proper reasons, the filibuster can be a reasonable tool—a tool of reason. Historically, the filibuster has been used sparingly—an average of once a year in the 1950’s. But since the 2000 election, politics have been increasingly more partisan. During the Bush era, Democrats, the minority party, used or threatened to use the filibuster to block conservative federal court appointments. Republicans floated an idea called the “nuclear option” to eliminate the need of a super majority (60 votes) on federal court nominees. To protect the Senate tradition of the filibuster, a bipartisan group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans called the “Gang of 14”, pledged this group would not filibuster except in “extraordinary circumstances”, if the Republicans would oppose the “nuclear option”. Gridlock ended. The filibuster was not abused. The tradition was preserved. Why can we not reach some similar agreement today? Instead we see politicians using the filibuster or threat of a filibuster as a way to score points with constituents or interest groups. Really, can the Republican Party claim that there have 130 “extraordinary circumstances” since 2008 that have justified their use of a filibuster? Certainly the motives of the Republican Party have to be questioned. It would appear that they are trying to prevent the majority party from “governing successfully”. However do we want to throw away the filibuster—an age-old tradition that has most instances served its purpose to check power and protect minority rights? Instead why can’t politicians pledge to use the tool in the manner it was intended? The problem isn’t the filibuster. The problem is the human trait of greed, power, and selfishness. If the filibuster would be used as our early leaders hoped it would, it can continue to be an effective protector of liberty. If Senators don’t want to be statesmen, but rather self-serving politicians, then it may be time to end the tradition.
