Would Filibustering Work?

Lots of frustrated people who aren't US Senators are calling on the Senate Democrats to force the Republicans to engage in some annoying "real" filibusters if they're going to insist on blocking all legislation. But would that work? Karen Tumulty from Time decided to consult some experts:

Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution calls this idea impractical. Given the fact that Republicans could muster 41 people on most things to hold the floor, a real filibuster could go on interminably....But Norm Ornstein at the American Enterprise Insitute thinks Reid should call the Republicans' bluff, starting with holding the Senate in session five long days a week. "You have a different Senate now. Frankly, they're soft," says Ornstein. "If they had the backbone and the discipline to do it, it would work."

Kevin Drum remarks that "if Mann and Ornstein disagree, then yes, this question is more complicated than we think."

I sort of disagree. There's an ambiguous sense of "work" here. Obviously, in a literal sense it's not in Harry Reid's power to prevent the GOP from behaving in a highly unified manner with at least 41 Senators sticking together on all issues. No amount of theater can, through magic, "work" to break down the bonds of solidarity. But there's going to be an election in 2008. If Democrats can drum home the message "obstructionist Republican Senators block all good things under the sun" that will tend to cause the Republicans to lose seats, which might change things. Conversely, if Republicans can drive home the message "ineffectual Democratic congress can't accomplish anything" they might be able to skate away. The current strategy definitely is driving home the second narrative, and timely political theater -- if done not once, but over and over and over and over again in the manner of something calculated to drive home a "message" -- could help switch the storyline.

That said, there's clearly a simple answer to this. Back during the "nuclear option" debate, the Republicans rolled out a method of eliminating the possibility of filibustering judicial nominees. At that time, Democrats should have raised the ante and said they would agree if we could just end all filibusters on everything. Having missed that opportunity then, Democrats would look like huge hypocrites if they did it now, but it's still the right thing to do: the filibuster's always been a bad rule and eliminating it would eliminate decades of further conversations like this about legislative gamesmanship.

Comments

I will ask again -- why is it worse to shut down the Senate (worse case scenario), when the option is to let the minority rule?

As Kevin published -- Dems in the minority, Republicans get their way. Dems in the majority, Repubs get their way.

Oh, for Dems with guts.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 14, 2007 9:07 AM

There's also a better chance--with a real filibuster--of the filibusterers saying something stupid that loses them support, or of frustration dividing their faction.

Posted by southpaw | December 14, 2007 9:10 AM

The filibuster's always been a bad rule? That's not in the least self-evident. How about some analysis or proof?

Sure, the filibuster carries some nasty historical baggage, from its use by Dixiecrats to block civil rights legislation. But more recently, it's bolstered our badly frayed system of checks and balances. It's a tool for the minority of the moment to restrain fleeting majorities.

If your memory stretches back further than November 2006, you should recall that for a while, it was about the only restraint left in Washington.

Posted by jbd | December 14, 2007 9:24 AM

Are you crazy Matt?

Have you no respect for tradition and what the Senate is? The cooling saucer...decisions must be made slowly. Don't get rid of the filibuster. What happens in 12-15 years when the Republicans get the Senate back and we can't stop them? Foolish.

The solution is to force real filibusters and wait it out. Not to get rid of filibusters. My God. Read Master of the Senate and get some respect.

Posted by What? | December 14, 2007 9:25 AM

So what if the Democrats look like hypocrites? If Republicans proved anything in, say, the 10 years from 1996 to 2006, is that as long as you have message discipline, you can be as hypocritical as you like and never pay any penalty for it. Everybody thinks all politicians are hypocrites anyway, so what's the harm? End the filibuster, when they call you hypocrites call them hypocrites right back (it'll be true), and when the dust clears you'll be able to pass legislation which, by the way, is what the whole goal of a party is supposed to be.

Posted by OhioBoy | December 14, 2007 9:26 AM

Again, about that oil subsidy bill, how likely is it that the Republicans have exactly 41 votes to filibuster? I say: either they have more than 41 and prefer to show 41 only, or the whole thing is a charade, because it just has to be possible to change the bill to chip off one senator. Why the charade? For example: to signal to the oil companies that they are expected to send more dough or next time their subsidies will indeed be taken away. Hey, why not, this is how the game is played...

Posted by abb1 | December 14, 2007 9:29 AM

I have to question whether the Dems actually want these bills to pass in the first place. Democrats say that they want to end the war, they say they want judicial oversight of wiretapping, they say they want to end torture, but they can't because the evil Republicans have blocked passage of any reform. Looks like Reid has no problem ignoring Dodd's hold on telecom amnesty, and I bet he will make him actually filibuster the bill. Why do you suspect Democratic leaders really want to pass a progressive domestic agenda?

Posted by Tim | December 14, 2007 9:38 AM

Have you no respect for tradition and what the Senate is?

An archaic institution designed to maintain slavery?

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 14, 2007 9:43 AM

Something else that's interesting is that I don't have to look at the world from the point of view of the elected official being discussed.

I can actually look at things from my point of view and my priorities.

And I'd rather the Democratic leadership force Republicans to filibuster, for all sorts of reasons, and I really don't give that much of a damn about looking at things from the leadership's perspective.

As a matter of fact, we need to do that a lot less, and get into the habit of looking at the world from our own grassroots point of view and priorities.

Posted by El Cid | December 14, 2007 9:48 AM

"The filibuster's always been a bad rule"? I think 40% is a bit small. Maybe 45% would be better.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 14, 2007 9:52 AM

Uh...No Ed. You aren't really that smart huh? Sad.

Posted by What? | December 14, 2007 9:52 AM

If Democrats can drum home the message "obstructionist Republican Senators block all good things under the sun" that will tend to cause the Republicans to lose seats, which might change things. Conversely, if Republicans can drive home the message "ineffectual Democratic congress can't accomplish anything" they might be able to skate away.

As OhioBoy already pointed out, it's all about message discipline (and not even political theatre). The Dems. need to actually drum home the message they want to drum home. Instead what you hear on the radio (and I presume the TeeVee too) is some backbencher Dem. talking sausage making and sounding partisan (without actually druming home the message of why he's using the strategery he's using) or some Blue-Dog complaining about Dem. partisanship and unwillingness to compromise in order to move things forward.

So the message voters are getting from the Democrats themselves (and on the "liberal media" which they believe is trying to place the Dems. in the best light) is that Democrats are ineffectual and hyper-partisan. If the Dems. had a tighter party operation, they would ironically appear less partisan as they could actually stay on message.

Posted by DAS | December 14, 2007 9:58 AM

Uh, no, you don't know your history of the Philadelphia convention. The Senate operates the way it does for one reason alone.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 14, 2007 9:59 AM

You listen to Rush Limbaugh from a couple of years ago, he's calling on the Republicans to do the same thing to the Democrats. Make them actually filibuster he says. I say everyone should filibuster as much as possible. The less that gets done by either bunch of jackasses the better.

Posted by Wilson | December 14, 2007 10:08 AM

The filibuster's a fine rule... for Article III judicial appointments. But yeah, scrap it for everything else.

Posted by phil | December 14, 2007 10:12 AM

Uh, Ed, I am sorry but slavery was not THE reason the Senate was created. It was created so that smaller states would ratify. So, uh, I maintain that you are not that smart and kind of a race-baiting bombthrower.

Thanks for trying to tarinish the institution of the Senate though. Still sad.

Posted by What? | December 14, 2007 10:23 AM

What ever you think about filibusters, the Gang of 14 compromise was a nightmare. Republicans got Alito and Roberts, Democrats got not very much at all (except in "extraordinary circumstances"). Whether it's worth giving up judicial filibusters to get rid of filibusters in general has nothing to do with evaluating with what went wrong in the nuclear option debate--it was a tactical rather than strategic failure.

Further, while Dems will look like hypocrites if they try to eliminate filibusters, and Republicans will look the same if they engage in judicial filibusters in '09, I'm not sure how much it actually matters to voters who looks like a hypocrite in following legislative rules. The real obstacle to getting rid of them is that filibusters enable Senators to insist on more pork to get anything passed. Filibusters enhance the power of Blue Dogs even while they cripple the Democrats in general.

I don't actually think ending filibusters would solve the current crisis, though. Still couldn't overcome vetos. Bush pays no price personally for pissing people off. Moreover, since the current political atmosphere is favorable for Democrats, Republicans might actually see an advantage in a shut-the-government-down battle shaking things up.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 14, 2007 10:27 AM

The filibuster is not about to be eliminated, for a very simple reason: The Democrats know (as Republicans did before 2006) that they will be in the minority again someday. At that point, they'll want to be able to stop policies they don't like. They aren't about to take the short term gain.

Posted by James Robertson | December 14, 2007 10:33 AM

At that point, they'll want to be able to stop policies they don't like.

Except that over the past seven years, they have never actually done this.

Posted by Christmas | December 14, 2007 10:43 AM

There's another angle to this. Forcing a "real" filibuster might not work in the sense that the Dems. break Rethug obstruction and get thru whatever bill is at issue. But if the Dem. leadership does it *every time* -- that is, if they totally abolish the fake, "gentleman's" filibusters that have been the rule in recent years and make it clear that *any* filibuster is going to be a real filibuster, then I would predict that the Rethugs would resort to the tactic less and less -- only when they are absolutely, totally committed to obstruction, and are not just obstructing out of reflex.

Posted by Egypt Steve | December 14, 2007 10:51 AM

If they eliminated the fillibuster, then all that would happen would be Bush would veto everything and the Dems are even further away from being able to override Bush vetoes than they are from stopping fillibusters. Maybe that scenario would slightly help the Democratic Presidential candidate, but I don't think it would be of much use for Congress. Basically we're stuck with the current situation until January 2009.

Posted by Ron | December 14, 2007 11:12 AM

I'm against the shadowy, virtual filibuster. Still, our top two candidates are Senators and I wish they would have less to attack about each other and have more of a Republican-bashing contest instead.

I think their stump speeches need to incorporate these Senate resolutions that have 54, 56, 59 vote majorities in favor, but can't pass because Republicans filibustered.

So when Sen. Grassley (R-IA) votes against cloture, the candidates need to say, "Hey. We have the votes to pass X but Sen. Grassley is standing in the way. So if you want X, you need to get rid of Sen. Grassley."

Substitute Gregg & Sunnunu while in NH, Graham & DeMint while in SC, McCain and Kyl while in AZ, etc. Do it from now until election day, every day.

The link needs to be explicit: Democrats have the votes to pass X, but Republican Y stood in the way. If you want X, get rid of Y.

Posted by Jalmari | December 14, 2007 12:39 PM

The point about being tough and fighting is that you put pressure on your opponents and good things are more likely to happen for you. There are a lot of Republican senators that need to run re-election campaigns next year, and one Republican senator already having to spend a lot of time campaigning for the presidential nomination. If the Democrats kept the Senate in session and forced the filibusters to be carried out, then surely at some point some of the Republican senators are going to start fighting about schedules. They'll have to argue (even if it's behind closed doors) about whether or not to pick their fights, and whether the strategy is really helping them politically or if they need to really change direction to avoid being massacred in '08. Most of all, it forces the narrative to change, as one day of newspapers writing a "Democrats failed to pass..." story becomes drowned by multiple proceeding days' "Republicans continued to block..." stories.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | December 14, 2007 12:45 PM

People should read Caro's Master of the Senate, to understand the truly dreadful history of Senate obstructionism.

It goes a lot further than slavery and apartheid.

Posted by David | December 14, 2007 1:09 PM

Ratification certainly did necessitate some slavery-related hacks, principally the Three-Fifths Compromise and Article I, Section 9, and the role and balance of the Senate was held hostage to slavery issues in the mid-19th-century period of westward expansion, but the bicameralism itself was more a sop to the tiny-ass northern states of Delaware, Connecticut, and Rhode Island as anything.

Posted by Senescent | December 14, 2007 2:06 PM

how about the possibility that the Dems aren't able to "wrench" away the last 3-4 senators to stop filibustering as a deliberate strategy? In this wacko but seemingly plausible conspiracy, the Senate Dems are able to vote strategically (even where some moderates don't particularly care for the legislation) without a hope of actually having to vote for something that passes. The well-known problem of "I voted for it before I voted against it" (or was it the other way around) is avoided -- you keep your donors happy as you "fight" for their proposals without giving away anything and you continue to build the "republican as monster" defense for the next election cycle. Excellent defensive strategy but a winner???

Posted by mike c | December 14, 2007 2:26 PM

Well one of the key takeaways from Master of the Senate is that the filibuster is a historical accident, not part of the plan designed by the framers to ensure checks and balances.

As I believe MY has pointed out before, ditching the filibuster is in the long term interest of the Democratic party. It is much harder to get rid of government programs than to create them. So moving to a 51 vote requirement will result in more progressive government over the long term.

Also now that the Northeast has started voting in as polarized a manner as the South the Democrats are likely to control the House for most terms in for a long time into the future. This will allow us to prevent the passage of legislation we don't like, even if we lose the Senate. (Although this still leaves us with the problem of blocking judicial appointees we don't like. This would be a greater concern if our Senators had demonstrated any willingness to filibuster Allito or Roberts.)

Posted by Mike | December 14, 2007 2:54 PM

Let the filibusters shut down the war

The Democrats should simply tie every single important bill they want passed to the bill that funds the Pentagon. Let them filibuster that bill. I'ld be happy to see it blocked. That's who wins these fights, whoever is more complacent about seeing the whole omnibus go into the ditch. Dems need to get a lot less responsible and a little more complacent.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | December 14, 2007 4:20 PM

Ornstein is right. All this posturing by the Senate their true soft nature. To paraphrase..

But real gangsta-ass senatas dont flex nuts
Cuz real gangsta-ass senatas know they got em

Harry Reid talks but doesn't use his powers. What does that say?

Posted by joejoejoe | December 14, 2007 6:34 PM

Make them filibuster!

The current need for 60 votes in the Senate is basically forcing the majority party to override a minority veto.

This is a power shift as radical as anything Bush is doing to expand Executive power or stack the whole judiciary with appointments. And it's all totally under the radar.

I am all for minority rights, so I am against removing the filibuster. Just make them actually do it!

That is the only chance to let people see how obstructionist the GOP is being. These "gentlemen's" filibusters aren't even being called filibusters in the news. They are just described as Democratic failures.

Forcing the GOP to actually do it ensures the public knows filibustering is going on.

Posted by St. Nick | December 14, 2007 6:38 PM

I was blogging on the idea of requiring "real" filibusters back when the GOP was discussing the "nuclear option." I refer to it as "the bioweapon option."

As I believe MY has pointed out before, ditching the filibuster is in the long term interest of the Democratic party. It is much harder to get rid of government programs than to create them. So moving to a 51 vote requirement will result in more progressive government over the long term.

Well, provided that more Democratic programs get passed than GOP ones. But I suppose you are always hoping that you can get liberal judges on the bench who will eliminate only the GOP-friendly programs on your behalf.

Posted by Glaivester | December 15, 2007 9:36 AM

I'm with Wilson. The filibuster is a great rule that should be used as much as possible. The less Congress is able to do the better for everyone.

Posted by robert powell | December 15, 2007 11:19 AM