Filibuster
A piece in Monday's Washington Post titled, "After Healthcare, We Need Senate Reform," seems to imply that the filibuster has become anachronistic, and should be eliminated or eviscerated.
If partisanship has, in fact, increased over the past decade or so (as is hinted in the article), that is a reason FOR the filibuster, not an argument against it . Do we really want the majority, particularly during times defined by a strong ideological divide, to have unfettered ability to ram through its agenda? Sure, good bills may sometimes fall victim to purely partisan obstructionism, but what a small price to pay for the capacity to defend the system against ideologues run amok. Don't we employ a similar rationale in our criminal justice system? Suboptimal outcomes (the guilty set free due to a technicality) are a tolerated evil in order to secure the greater good (our freedoms, and the integrity of the system). History has unambiguously demonstrated that enacted legislation, no matter how ill-advised, is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to repeal.
The Senate was specifically designed by the founding fathers to be the deliberative body. They fully anticipated that the House of Representatives, by its very nature, would be much more subject to bouts of impetuousness and instances of populism. The process in the Senate, therefore, is meant to be measured, and respectful of the minority.
Although the filibuster is not outlined in the constitution (it is a Senate-defined rule that has evolved and been changed over time), it is completely consistent with the framers' recognition that certain decisions, because of their gravity, should necessitate a supermajority vote (e.g. requirements to pass a constitutional amendment). Sure, the minority may, on occasion, or even frequently, filibuster the relatively trivial, but, that is simply a small, broken branch on the majestic tree of liberty that shades us from the tyranny of the majority.
Moreover, the Senate's deliberative style is critical insofar as it allows time for the electorate to be educated and heard. The filibuster lets light be shone It facilitates opportunity for deeper analysis and reflection, and therefore—a more informed populace, better equipped to provide feedback to policymakers. And, it promotes transparency. If the majority cannot make an effective enough argument to adequately sway public opinion to its side (and therefore help to attract enough Senate votes to prevent/stop a filibuster), the proposed legislation is likely not ready for prime time. The filibuster is a necessary check and balance on the otherwise unchecked power of the majority.
A Senate devoid of the filibuster, or the option of a supermajority vote requirement, is one that can much more easily run roughshod.
Regardless of political affiliation, the filibuster is in our long-term interest.
If partisanship has, in fact, increased over the past decade or so (as is hinted in the article), that is a reason FOR the filibuster, not an argument against it . Do we really want the majority, particularly during times defined by a strong ideological divide, to have unfettered ability to ram through its agenda? Sure, good bills may sometimes fall victim to purely partisan obstructionism, but what a small price to pay for the capacity to defend the system against ideologues run amok. Don't we employ a similar rationale in our criminal justice system? Suboptimal outcomes (the guilty set free due to a technicality) are a tolerated evil in order to secure the greater good (our freedoms, and the integrity of the system). History has unambiguously demonstrated that enacted legislation, no matter how ill-advised, is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to repeal.
The Senate was specifically designed by the founding fathers to be the deliberative body. They fully anticipated that the House of Representatives, by its very nature, would be much more subject to bouts of impetuousness and instances of populism. The process in the Senate, therefore, is meant to be measured, and respectful of the minority.
Although the filibuster is not outlined in the constitution (it is a Senate-defined rule that has evolved and been changed over time), it is completely consistent with the framers' recognition that certain decisions, because of their gravity, should necessitate a supermajority vote (e.g. requirements to pass a constitutional amendment). Sure, the minority may, on occasion, or even frequently, filibuster the relatively trivial, but, that is simply a small, broken branch on the majestic tree of liberty that shades us from the tyranny of the majority.
Moreover, the Senate's deliberative style is critical insofar as it allows time for the electorate to be educated and heard. The filibuster lets light be shone It facilitates opportunity for deeper analysis and reflection, and therefore—a more informed populace, better equipped to provide feedback to policymakers. And, it promotes transparency. If the majority cannot make an effective enough argument to adequately sway public opinion to its side (and therefore help to attract enough Senate votes to prevent/stop a filibuster), the proposed legislation is likely not ready for prime time. The filibuster is a necessary check and balance on the otherwise unchecked power of the majority.
A Senate devoid of the filibuster, or the option of a supermajority vote requirement, is one that can much more easily run roughshod.
Regardless of political affiliation, the filibuster is in our long-term interest.
An excellent perspective on filibuster that I haven't considered. An important aspect of progressing voter education on the topic, not simply a technical move to assert the minority's power. Well written.
Reply to this
The worst congressional actions have often come from knee-jerk reactions to some unanticipated event or perceived imbalance. Hope there are enough forward-thinking legislators to recognize the important check and balance that is implicit in the filibuster. Thanks for participating.
Reply to this