Filibuster reality
January 13, 2022 9 Comments
So, about the time I was ranting against the filibuster in class today, turned out that Krysten Sinema was giving an impassioned, completely a-historical, and, of-course, non-sensical defense of the filibuster. Now, I’m far from sold on the particular voting rights bill and whether that’s worth bringing the filibuster down for filibuster lovers, but, overall the filibuster is an anti-democratic abomination. Very good stuff here from Lawrence Lessig today:
It’s impossibly difficult to know whether Senators like Sinema actually mean what they say, or whether they just think we’re so stupid that we won’t notice how crazy what they say is.
Sinema was almost in tears as she waxed rhapsodic about the “60-vote threshold” — as if there is any evidence that threshold has done any good for America.
Because implicit in her argument is a hint of the error that Manchin astonishingly made — the suggestion that we have a “232-year tradition” that Democrats are now trying to change.
That is, as my mom would have said, just piffle.
The above gif is the history of the filibuster. It begins at the beginning of the last century. It continues through the current Congress. The bars represent the number of times a cloture motion was filed. That’s an indication of the number of filibusters there were.
Over this hundred-year history, two things changed — the rules, and the norms. For the first period, where there are essentially no filibusters, the rules required a Senator to earn the slowing of debate, by actually holding the floor and speaking.
The second period saw the rules change, to flip the burden, and force those who would stop debate to demonstrate a supermajority in favor of ending debate.
But that rule ran with a norm that limited the filibuster to “important” issues. Obviously, there are more filibusters during this period because the filibuster is easier. But obviously, as well, not every issue gets filibustered, because Senate norms limited the application of the filibuster substantially.
The third period saw that norm change. Or let’s remove the passive voice, and say it more directly: That third period saw Mitch McConnell end that norm, and establish what Sinema is so emotionally committed to defending: “the 60-vote threshold.” Now the rule was not the exception. Now the rule was the norm. McConnell made this change because he wanted to assure, as he promised, that Obama would be a one-term President. (Sorry, Mitch.) But the numbers don’t lie: There is a radical change in the frequency of the filibuster after McConnell becomes leader, leading to an effective stalemate in the Senate.
What Democrat could like this picture?
I get why Republicans like it. The single policy objective of Republicans is to cut taxes, and — surprise!, surprise!—because budget reconciliation is exempted from the filibuster, that policy objective does not get blocked by the filibuster.
But how could a Democrat — especially a Democrat who reminds us she was a “social worker”—defend it?
I really also like the very simple argument… if a legislative super-majority is such a good thing how come basically no other democracy, but less no American state consistently relies upon it?
And, for the definitive takedowns, Ezra Klein in Vox and the NYT.
About Steve Greene
Fully Myelinated 
To riff on the article’s key question:
“What Democrat could like this picture?”
“…how could a Democrat,” — especially one who was a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of a state being carved up with surgical precision by voter suppression – “defend it?”
Ask Cheri Beasley. And the NC democrats who about to overwhelmingly nominate her. She supports the filibuster.
Really? Ugh. Of course, I suspect that’s just a talking point to show how moderate she is to help win NC. I really doubt she’d give us absurd Manchin/Sinema vibes if she were elected.
How is that a moderate position when it is widely unpopular? Why would that help a dem win in any state? Warnock and ossof and all the other swing state dems in the senate,regardless of their states’ partisan lean, disagree with that strategic assessment. Keeping the filibuster is an unpopular position across all voters. It really only enjoys majority support among republicans and large donors. I have decided to believe politicians when they are willing to openly take positions unpopular with voters but popular with their major donors.
Lets be clear… voters are pretty much clueless about the filibuster. It’s just elite signaling (that *will* affect media coverage among other things) that pushes back against “liberal Democrat.” It’s not a matter of popular or unpopular. It’s a signal at the margins that she’s more “moderate” or “centrist” in a state where that is perceived as helping a Dem win statewide. A lot of “moderate” and “centrist” positions are asinine. It’s (almost) all signaling.
All good points, but… Voters are strongly in favor of government action even if they don’t know specifics about the filibuster. Are there any dem senators across the country being labeled liberal by the media for opposing the filibuster? She could choose lots of positions to signal her centrism, so why that?
Between 1932 and 1980, the Democrats had 55+ senators in all but 10 years, No surprise, not many filibusters. The Civil Rights Acts passed 73 to 27 in 1964. Now the Dems want to pass major stuff at 50 to 50, if they can hector Joe Manchin to go along.
As the article pointed out about that period, it was the norm to only filibuster bills that challenged white supremacy. Other types of bills were regularly allowed to pass with a simple majority of less than 60 votes. And since many of the committee chairs that controlled Congress during that time were white supremacist Democrats they didn’t often need to filibuster themselves because they would just never pass those bills out of their committees. The thing about the civil rights bills that marks them as an exception that proves the rule is that Lyndon Johnson had to overcome the filibuster to get it through and he managed to do it. And of course according to the constitution there is no requirement for how much a bill has to pass by to become law. Just that it must pass both houses.
I retract. More recently Cheri Beasley has been on the record taking a position for at least reforming the filibuster. Hopefully that holds up if she wins and she some day ends up being the 50th vote to get us out of the filibuster period of American predemocracy
She’s not dumb. Ongoing support of the filibuster is not a very good position for a D candidate. (If he hadn’t dropped out out Jackson would’ve beaten over the head with this).