More confusing polls

Majority claim to want filibuster eliminated

In recent years the filibuster has become the unloved step-child of the Senate. Both sides (depending on who has power) have derided the tactic as an affront to democracy and an abuse of Senate procedure.

Part of this is due to the hazy circumstances surrounding the filibuster origin. In the original Senate procedures two votes occurred before any bill was passed - the first ended debate and the second was for passage - in 1806 the Senate chose to do away with the first requirement, effectively allowing 'unlimited' debate on any particular bill. This wasn't fully utilized until Senators grouped together in 1841 to prevent the creation of a new National Bank until the session expired.

In the early filibusterin' days a vote for cloture required 2/3 of present Senators to end debate on a bill. This created the filibuster we remember from films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington where Senate rules required the filibustering party to remain present for the entire duration. This was changed in the 1970s to just require 60% of all Senators. This eliminated the need for a physical presence during the filibuster -replacing it with a universal requirement of 60% for any filibustered bill.

So now we have a situation where the minority party in the Senate can essentially obstruct a bill indefinitely until it receives > 60% support. According to some pundits (Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, etc) it has become an unacceptable blockage of much-needed reforms.

I have a few observations / criticisms of those who oppose the filibuster and those who employ it.

1) It seems as though perception of the filibuster massively changes depending on who wields control of the legislative process. When Republicans were trying to confirm Samuel Alito and other Justices during the Bush years Democrats were more than happy to employ filibusters until a (very unpopular) compromise was reached. Furthermore - the opinion of the 'nuclear option', reconciliation, threatened by Republicans (and derided by Democrats) has now reversed itself completely.

2) Has Republican 'obstructionism' vis a vis the filibuster truly been the culprit behind stalled health reform? Democrats controlled the Senate until Scott Brown's recent appointment - it seems the real reason for delayed reform was certain Democrat Senators attempting to obtain special favors for their constituents.

3) Ezra Klein says that opposition to the filibuster isn't a Democrat or Republican issue, it's a 'majoritarian' goal. Would it be a universally good thing to give the majority MORE power in this country? Has Ezra forgotten that only a few years ago the opposing party controlled both Houses and the Presidency? Would increased 'majoritarian' rule lead to better policies or worse? Perhaps we could have used a minority filibuster post 9/11 before the PATRIOT ACT, or during the jingoistic run-up to the Iraq War.

Finally, both sides have criticized the increasing usage of the filibuster during what once qualified as routine voting. This is commonly perceived as the creeping influence of partisan bickering, but perhaps it's a backlash towards a Federal system that accepts no limit on its reach and authority. What once occupied a great deal of debate, the constitutionality of a given bill or the appropriateness of federal involvement, is now usually brushed aside in favor of political expediency. Critics are correct to say our Founders never intended mundane actions from the Senate to require a 2/3 majority, but certainly they intended our Constitution to be amended as needed - not reinterpreted as convenient.

Without the guiding constraints of a strong Constitutional system there is no clear limit on what the Federal Government can and cannot do. When the side in power has the ability to enact legislation with massive ramifications the opposition will increasingly use obstructionist measures in lieu of debate and compromise.