Madison wrote somewhere in the Federalist about the fact that too many laws are a common problem of most governments, and that the Senate is set up as a kind of hindrance to crazy law-making. I think there were other ways for the minority to keep debate going, thus blocking a vote, but it seems like it was never set up to be effectively truly simple-majority rule. I'm not sure what he would think in today's time where the politicians really just want to complain about the other party not doing anything, rather than actually doing something themselves. And I do sometimes have a feeling that maybe we are better off with these people doing less, rather than more.
I think that eliminating the filibuster would be a huge mistake. The current exceptions to the filibuster, such as the reconciliation procedure and Supreme Court justices, have led us to the chaos we are currently experiencing.
The end of the filibuster will also turn the U.S. into a Democracy, as far as Congress is concerned and be the death of the Republic. What follows, based on history, has never been good.
This is an excellent overview on the filibuster. I particularly like your comment about changing the rules to allow items with bipartisan support to come to the floor. I haven't seen anyone else make that point. You are 100% correct.
There is one other point that I think should be made. From a practical policy perspective, the Democrats have so much more to gain from ending the filibuster. Right now, Republicans could get some items on their wish list by killing the filibuster - further gutting the federal role in medical care and food assistance, maybe another round of tax cuts – but they have already achieved most of their goals in these areas. There's not a lot more policy that they want that the filibuster is keeping them from getting.
But, for the Democrats, ending the filibuster would be a huge political and policy bonanza. They could add two more Democratic states, Puerto Rico and D.C., allowing millions of currently disenfranchised voters (mostly people of color) to change the power dynamics of the Senate and the Electoral College. They could change the number of Justices on the Supreme Court or limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (as Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution allows). They could replace the ACA with a true single payer healthcare system.
The fundamental power dynamic in the federal government for the last few decades is that Republicans want government to do little and the Democrats want government to do a lot. The filibuster, which prevents so much government action, is greatly to the advantage of the Republicans.
I agree, the benefits to the Democrats are significant and will have longer lasting impact. Leveling the playing field for all Americans to be able to vote is huge.
Changing the Supreme Court rules, term limits, number of justices on the court as well as limiting the number of justices that any President can put in per each four year term.
We got where we are by Obama being denied his Supreme Court seat nomination and then Trump used that extra nomination to unfairly stack the court.
Axing the filibuster is long overdue in my opinion and I hope it happens soon. I may be wrong but I think every government shutdown would have been eliminated if the filibuster was not in place. Removing it may cause a certain amount of chaos but it’s evident that keeping it causes chaos too. I’m also curious about the support for removal. Is removing it really a position the Democrats support and the Republicans oppose? Seems to me it’s a position the party out of power supports and the party in power opposes, which of course is why we still have it today. Finally, why is Trump supporting removal? He must be getting uncomfortable pressure from somewhere about the shutdown. This is a quick way to end it without the Republicans appearing to cave.
I have thought for a long time now that if the silent filibuster (effortless permanent minority veto) isn't destroyed it might destroy the country or at least our democracy. It did severe damage to the Roman Senate/Republic a couple thousand yrs ago. Ours is far worse than theirs. McConnell is like Cato was. Filibuster was basically an invention of his. There's a myth/cult around Cato but he was an oligarchic villain. We lost the "Anticato" to history which was written by Caesar.
The Senate has become extremely ineffective & the place where legislation goes to die like in Late Republic Rome. It's already broken our politics for years now. That's why I think Dems should prioritize it over anything else. A prolonged govt shutdown while in the minority might further that goal by weakening Republican support of it.
"Julius Caesar and the Roman People" by Robert Morstein-Marx.
Good overview. Regarding story 2, I think there’s an optimistic scenario where politics go crazy for a session and then some normalcy returns. Senators won’t be immune to public (and donor) opinion. Eliminating the filibuster may allow the crazy animal spirits to come out and then be swiftly subdued. A lot of Senators campaign on insane positions like the Ohio senator who wants a national abortion ban because these Senators know the filibuster protects them. If they have to face real implementation, then I bet they moderate quickly.
The next good outcome is that it allows for real governing. Gridlock is slowly suffocating American progress
I loved “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” I was heartbroken to learn the Senate didn’t do those type of filibusters anymore. I like the idea of filibuster reform but agree that a discharge petition like process in the Senate is badly needed
"And if you don’t have such a sweeping majority, you should have to work with the other party and participate in the bipartisan negotiating process that the filibuster encourages, and which worked fairly well as recently as the Biden era, when major bills on infrastructure, manufacturing, political reform, and more surpassed the 60-vote threshold." Anything that encourages more bipartisanship is a good thing my book.
“I think there’s a good chance that historians of the future will look at the presidencies of the 2000s-2020s and be genuinely confused why they achieved so little”.
There’s a long list of worthy things to do but I think overall the country has been in good shape since the 1980s - that a majority of voters continue to live a stable life without major legislation passing. You could even make a case that some of the more drastic changes to daily life have come from un-doing past legislation in the form of deregulation. I think the 9/11 attacks, Great Recession and Covid show that the govt works pretty well (at least in terms of bipartisanship and activity, maybe not results) when the country faces a crisis or immediate challenge.
Gabe, you present cogent arguments on both sides of the filibuster issue, but I continue to wonder why most Democrats oppose the filibuster when they will most probably continue to be in the Senate minority for years to come. As you and other pundits regularly point out, our electoral college and Senate systems in particular are biased towards more representation from rural areas which tend (increasingly so!) Republican. Given this (and given my pessimism of your 2029 scenario) the only way Dems will be able to block major Republican initiatives for the foreseeable future is through the filibuster. I still think that you proposed solutions to the inefficiencies of the Senate are a more effective way forward and perhaps sometime you can give a more detailed analysis of why these ideas don’t gain more traction.
Congratulations Gabe….that’s an impressive list quoting you. Keep up the great work !
Gabe, I’m so happy that your smart well resourced reporting is getting noticed by other media outlets. Well deserved! 👏🏻👏🏻
Madison wrote somewhere in the Federalist about the fact that too many laws are a common problem of most governments, and that the Senate is set up as a kind of hindrance to crazy law-making. I think there were other ways for the minority to keep debate going, thus blocking a vote, but it seems like it was never set up to be effectively truly simple-majority rule. I'm not sure what he would think in today's time where the politicians really just want to complain about the other party not doing anything, rather than actually doing something themselves. And I do sometimes have a feeling that maybe we are better off with these people doing less, rather than more.
I think that eliminating the filibuster would be a huge mistake. The current exceptions to the filibuster, such as the reconciliation procedure and Supreme Court justices, have led us to the chaos we are currently experiencing.
The end of the filibuster will also turn the U.S. into a Democracy, as far as Congress is concerned and be the death of the Republic. What follows, based on history, has never been good.
In the next administration: Gabe Fleisher for Chief of Staff.
This is an excellent overview on the filibuster. I particularly like your comment about changing the rules to allow items with bipartisan support to come to the floor. I haven't seen anyone else make that point. You are 100% correct.
There is one other point that I think should be made. From a practical policy perspective, the Democrats have so much more to gain from ending the filibuster. Right now, Republicans could get some items on their wish list by killing the filibuster - further gutting the federal role in medical care and food assistance, maybe another round of tax cuts – but they have already achieved most of their goals in these areas. There's not a lot more policy that they want that the filibuster is keeping them from getting.
But, for the Democrats, ending the filibuster would be a huge political and policy bonanza. They could add two more Democratic states, Puerto Rico and D.C., allowing millions of currently disenfranchised voters (mostly people of color) to change the power dynamics of the Senate and the Electoral College. They could change the number of Justices on the Supreme Court or limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (as Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution allows). They could replace the ACA with a true single payer healthcare system.
The fundamental power dynamic in the federal government for the last few decades is that Republicans want government to do little and the Democrats want government to do a lot. The filibuster, which prevents so much government action, is greatly to the advantage of the Republicans.
I agree, the benefits to the Democrats are significant and will have longer lasting impact. Leveling the playing field for all Americans to be able to vote is huge.
Changing the Supreme Court rules, term limits, number of justices on the court as well as limiting the number of justices that any President can put in per each four year term.
We got where we are by Obama being denied his Supreme Court seat nomination and then Trump used that extra nomination to unfairly stack the court.
Axing the filibuster is long overdue in my opinion and I hope it happens soon. I may be wrong but I think every government shutdown would have been eliminated if the filibuster was not in place. Removing it may cause a certain amount of chaos but it’s evident that keeping it causes chaos too. I’m also curious about the support for removal. Is removing it really a position the Democrats support and the Republicans oppose? Seems to me it’s a position the party out of power supports and the party in power opposes, which of course is why we still have it today. Finally, why is Trump supporting removal? He must be getting uncomfortable pressure from somewhere about the shutdown. This is a quick way to end it without the Republicans appearing to cave.
I have thought for a long time now that if the silent filibuster (effortless permanent minority veto) isn't destroyed it might destroy the country or at least our democracy. It did severe damage to the Roman Senate/Republic a couple thousand yrs ago. Ours is far worse than theirs. McConnell is like Cato was. Filibuster was basically an invention of his. There's a myth/cult around Cato but he was an oligarchic villain. We lost the "Anticato" to history which was written by Caesar.
The Senate has become extremely ineffective & the place where legislation goes to die like in Late Republic Rome. It's already broken our politics for years now. That's why I think Dems should prioritize it over anything else. A prolonged govt shutdown while in the minority might further that goal by weakening Republican support of it.
"Julius Caesar and the Roman People" by Robert Morstein-Marx.
Good overview. Regarding story 2, I think there’s an optimistic scenario where politics go crazy for a session and then some normalcy returns. Senators won’t be immune to public (and donor) opinion. Eliminating the filibuster may allow the crazy animal spirits to come out and then be swiftly subdued. A lot of Senators campaign on insane positions like the Ohio senator who wants a national abortion ban because these Senators know the filibuster protects them. If they have to face real implementation, then I bet they moderate quickly.
The next good outcome is that it allows for real governing. Gridlock is slowly suffocating American progress
Trump talking about legislation? Everything else makes sense. Legislation from Trump. You’re dreaming
I loved “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” I was heartbroken to learn the Senate didn’t do those type of filibusters anymore. I like the idea of filibuster reform but agree that a discharge petition like process in the Senate is badly needed
"And if you don’t have such a sweeping majority, you should have to work with the other party and participate in the bipartisan negotiating process that the filibuster encourages, and which worked fairly well as recently as the Biden era, when major bills on infrastructure, manufacturing, political reform, and more surpassed the 60-vote threshold." Anything that encourages more bipartisanship is a good thing my book.
Doesn’t the filibuster assure compromise?!!
“I think there’s a good chance that historians of the future will look at the presidencies of the 2000s-2020s and be genuinely confused why they achieved so little”.
There’s a long list of worthy things to do but I think overall the country has been in good shape since the 1980s - that a majority of voters continue to live a stable life without major legislation passing. You could even make a case that some of the more drastic changes to daily life have come from un-doing past legislation in the form of deregulation. I think the 9/11 attacks, Great Recession and Covid show that the govt works pretty well (at least in terms of bipartisanship and activity, maybe not results) when the country faces a crisis or immediate challenge.
True but the record on long simmering issues is terrible. Look at the debt accumulation and the completely underwhelming response to China.
Gabe, you present cogent arguments on both sides of the filibuster issue, but I continue to wonder why most Democrats oppose the filibuster when they will most probably continue to be in the Senate minority for years to come. As you and other pundits regularly point out, our electoral college and Senate systems in particular are biased towards more representation from rural areas which tend (increasingly so!) Republican. Given this (and given my pessimism of your 2029 scenario) the only way Dems will be able to block major Republican initiatives for the foreseeable future is through the filibuster. I still think that you proposed solutions to the inefficiencies of the Senate are a more effective way forward and perhaps sometime you can give a more detailed analysis of why these ideas don’t gain more traction.