Ah, the filibuster. It’s the ultimate tool of gridlock. It allows even in a majority government for governance to come to a complete halt. Despite one party’s dominance in a series of elections, winning the votes of the people, the filibuster remains as an impediment for any party that wants to implement change. Unfortunately for the Democrats, as the party of progressive new policies, the majority of the time the filibuster has been far more detrimental to the left.
The filibuster isn’t even a historically-significant rule. Nowhere in the constitution is there anything about the filibuster. In fact, the first use of the filibuster was only in 1837, almost fifty years after the ratification of the constitution. Moreover, its original intent wasn’t to block legislation completely, but either to extend debate or delay a vote. Throughout its early history, the filibuster was used rarely and completely halted legislation on even rarer occasions.
At one point, you needed to have the bodies (or voices) to enact a filibuster. Perhaps this stand of protest and delay could allow a senator to prove himself ideologically. Ultimately, however, filibusters would come to an end before the 1975 rule that eliminated the need to actively talk through a filibuster.
It’s not like we haven’t gotten rid of a filibuster before either. The House had a filibuster-like rule at one point too, but they got rid of it because it was such a pain to work with.
Ideologically speaking, the filibuster poses large problems as well. Essentially, the rule allows for 40 percent of elected senators to hold an equal voice as 60 percent. This is insane, in what single democracy does a minority have the power to stop legislation of a party 150% its size?
On one hand, there’s the idea that there should be checks and balances to ensure that the majority does not infringe on the rights of the minority. This is absolutely a noble idea, but we already have those checks! Not only does the House have the power to stop legislation out of the Senate, but so does the President and the Supreme Court. We have a Bill of Rights for this very reason in the first place! There’s no need to put up yet another obstacle for policymaking when there are already so many mechanisms in place to stop unconstitutional policy.
Moreover, there’s a certain element of deceit when a majority party cannot implement its policies. Yes, it is terrible that the GOP holds all branches of government right now, but that’s what the voters voted for! That’s part of our process. The GOP won, now they have the privilege of governing, and there is no real reason to have a filibuster, other than allowing a minority party to halt the majority despite its DEMOCRATIC victories.
Finally, if the GOP were to eliminate the legislative filibuster, the left would ultimately benefit in the end. Think about it. The goal of the left is to be progressive, to move the country forward. The GOP, meanwhile, thrives off being a minority party. Their goal isn’t necessarily just to be regressive, but they are successful if they block a policy that would otherwise be progressive. Democrats are not ok with complacency, the GOP thrives off it.
Essentially, getting rid of the filibuster would help the left in the long term. Had the filibuster not been present after Obama’s election, the Democrats could have passed a substantially higher amount of progressive legislation in its two years in the majority. Obamacare, for example, was originally intended to have a public option, but President Obama was trying to lock down 60 votes for cloture. Had a filibuster not been a factor, Obama could have lost a few Democratic votes, ultimately putting through a more progressive policy with less than 60 votes.
The filibuster, although seemingly valuable right now, is far more detrimental to the left than the right. And, the Democrats should actively filibuster legislation of the GOP. At one point, the GOP might get rid of the rule. That is a short term loss for the left, but would lead to positive outcomes in the future. First off, the Republicans would look far worse publically by getting rid of the filibuster. More importantly, however, the long-term gain for the Democrats once back in power is far more important.