A Dive into the Crazy Life of the Filibuster (Republicans and Democrats can both agree on this one)
I strongly believe the filibuster needs to go. This is not a new thought for me, I've been frustrated with the ridiculous filibuster for many years. It was never some sacred Founders' design or deliberate check on majority tyranny; it was pure accident born from a sloppy rule change in 1806, and later on when it was discovered, politicians being the same 'opportunistic' people then as now, latched onto it, tweaking the mechanics over time into the perfect coward's tool: talk tough on popular issues, blame the other side for blocking, and never actually deliver a vote that might force them to own the outcome. This is why establishment politicians on both sides of the isle get very squirely when anyone talks about getting rid of it.
Here's how this slow-motion betrayal unfolded, starting with the original screw-up that nobody saw coming.
In 1806, Vice President Burr (you remember, the duel with Hamilton) complained that the Senate rulebook was bloated with redundant junk. Senators agreed and deleted a bunch of old procedures, including the one that let a simple majority cut off debate. They forgot to replace it. Oops. Unlimited debate was accidentally baked in with no kill switch. For decades nobody noticed because actual filibusters stayed rare, used only a handful of times from 1806 to 1917, like in 1837 over expunging Andrew Jackson's censure, 1841 on Henry Clay's national bank recharter, the 1850s slavery debates where pro-slavery Democrats talked anti-slavery bills to death, and finally 1917's endless filibuster on arming merchant ships for WWI. One guy could talk forever, but holding the floor nonstop was exhausting, socially toxic, and politically suicidal. Obstruction happened, but it cost real political capital and because of that, it was still rare, with major legislation still passing when majorities muscled through and no easy excuses for hiding behind procedure.
1917-1975:
In 1917 Woodrow Wilson fumed after a filibuster killed arming merchant ships for WWI, so they added Rule 22. Cloture was born, (A threshold that must be hit to move to a vote in the Senate.) introduced at two-thirds (about 67 votes). A supermajority could finally end forever debates, (remember 2 or 3 Senators could hold up any bills. Think the squad. So, 67 seemed very doable at that time.) but it wasn't long before hitting that bar was near-impossible on divisive issues. Southern Democrats mastered the game, killing civil rights bills, anti-lynching measures, and voting rights expansions for decades despite majority support in the chamber. Cloture votes stayed infrequent, meaning nothing got through to an actual vote. But, like everything else, democrats could never accept was the majority wanted, so as time passed the real talking filibusters started to hurt, and visible obstruction carried a high political price. Getting big things done crawled, but the blame game wasn't as effortless as it was at first, so more tweaks were a must.
1975: cloture lowered to 60 votes with the added bonus that you no longer needed to debate at all. Reformers pitched it as the fix to speed things up and tame the beast. Epic backfire. Cloture motions exploded from a handful per year to dozens, then 50-plus annually in recent cycles. The silent filibuster and two-track system let the minority just threaten without ever opening their mouths; bills die quietly while the Senate pretends to move on other business. Productivity cratered. We went from passing thousands of bills in the mid-20th century to scraping by with under 5 percent of introduced legislation today, floor time devoured by procedural trench warfare. Everything became a de facto 60-vote threshold except budget gimmicks and nuked nominations.
Each 'reform' handed both party's better camouflage. The 1806 blunder created the vacuum. Early on, obstruction was raw and punishing. The two-thirds era formalized it but kept the pain visible. The 60-vote switch made it effortless: object, force the majority to scramble or fold, then campaign on 'I fought for it, but those obstructionists!'
Democrats used it, Republicans returned fire. The result isn't thoughtful debate. It's perfected cowardly governance where appearing to support popular laws trumps ever passing them. The filibuster didn't protect the Senate; it perfected the art of never having to stand for anything. Time to scrap the relic and force actual accountability. It's was a brilliant design. The house a group of 535 Americans spread across the country elected every two years must pass a bill. Then the Senate, two from every State must pass with a simple majority, elected every six years. Then the President must sign it (the only guy beside the VP elected by all the people every four years. It's brilliant, but the filibuster ruins accountability and hampers what the people voted for more times than not.
It's time to get rid of it. What is a good reason not to?
I strongly believe the filibuster needs to go. This is not a new thought for me, I've been frustrated with the ridiculous filibuster for many years. It was never some sacred Founders' design or deliberate check on majority tyranny; it was pure accident born from a sloppy rule change in 1806, and later on when it was discovered, politicians being the same 'opportunistic' people then as now, latched onto it, tweaking the mechanics over time into the perfect coward's tool: talk tough on popular issues, blame the other side for blocking, and never actually deliver a vote that might force them to own the outcome. This is why establishment politicians on both sides of the isle get very squirely when anyone talks about getting rid of it.
Here's how this slow-motion betrayal unfolded, starting with the original screw-up that nobody saw coming.
In 1806, Vice President Burr (you remember, the duel with Hamilton) complained that the Senate rulebook was bloated with redundant junk. Senators agreed and deleted a bunch of old procedures, including the one that let a simple majority cut off debate. They forgot to replace it. Oops. Unlimited debate was accidentally baked in with no kill switch. For decades nobody noticed because actual filibusters stayed rare, used only a handful of times from 1806 to 1917, like in 1837 over expunging Andrew Jackson's censure, 1841 on Henry Clay's national bank recharter, the 1850s slavery debates where pro-slavery Democrats talked anti-slavery bills to death, and finally 1917's endless filibuster on arming merchant ships for WWI. One guy could talk forever, but holding the floor nonstop was exhausting, socially toxic, and politically suicidal. Obstruction happened, but it cost real political capital and because of that, it was still rare, with major legislation still passing when majorities muscled through and no easy excuses for hiding behind procedure.
1917-1975:
In 1917 Woodrow Wilson fumed after a filibuster killed arming merchant ships for WWI, so they added Rule 22. Cloture was born, (A threshold that must be hit to move to a vote in the Senate.) introduced at two-thirds (about 67 votes). A supermajority could finally end forever debates, (remember 2 or 3 Senators could hold up any bills. Think the squad. So, 67 seemed very doable at that time.) but it wasn't long before hitting that bar was near-impossible on divisive issues. Southern Democrats mastered the game, killing civil rights bills, anti-lynching measures, and voting rights expansions for decades despite majority support in the chamber. Cloture votes stayed infrequent, meaning nothing got through to an actual vote. But, like everything else, democrats could never accept was the majority wanted, so as time passed the real talking filibusters started to hurt, and visible obstruction carried a high political price. Getting big things done crawled, but the blame game wasn't as effortless as it was at first, so more tweaks were a must.
1975: cloture lowered to 60 votes with the added bonus that you no longer needed to debate at all. Reformers pitched it as the fix to speed things up and tame the beast. Epic backfire. Cloture motions exploded from a handful per year to dozens, then 50-plus annually in recent cycles. The silent filibuster and two-track system let the minority just threaten without ever opening their mouths; bills die quietly while the Senate pretends to move on other business. Productivity cratered. We went from passing thousands of bills in the mid-20th century to scraping by with under 5 percent of introduced legislation today, floor time devoured by procedural trench warfare. Everything became a de facto 60-vote threshold except budget gimmicks and nuked nominations.
Each 'reform' handed both party's better camouflage. The 1806 blunder created the vacuum. Early on, obstruction was raw and punishing. The two-thirds era formalized it but kept the pain visible. The 60-vote switch made it effortless: object, force the majority to scramble or fold, then campaign on 'I fought for it, but those obstructionists!'
Democrats used it, Republicans returned fire. The result isn't thoughtful debate. It's perfected cowardly governance where appearing to support popular laws trumps ever passing them. The filibuster didn't protect the Senate; it perfected the art of never having to stand for anything. Time to scrap the relic and force actual accountability. It's was a brilliant design. The house a group of 535 Americans spread across the country elected every two years must pass a bill. Then the Senate, two from every State must pass with a simple majority, elected every six years. Then the President must sign it (the only guy beside the VP elected by all the people every four years. It's brilliant, but the filibuster ruins accountability and hampers what the people voted for more times than not.
It's time to get rid of it. What is a good reason not to?
