Sorting Through the Filibuster Debate

Everyone is weighing in with their thoughts on the filibuster issue and I decided that today I would give my thoughts on it. As you know the GOP is trying to eliminate the minority filibuster in congress, thus paving the way for whomever has the majority to pretty much do whatever they want. I think this sounds a little dangerous, but lets examine some arguments.

Matt Yglesias at Tapped notes that the filibuster has often been used to halt progressive legislation.
Yglesias writes: "It is, by contrast, very easy to think of liberal initiatives that filibusters have blocked. Indeed, as conservative activist Jim Boulet Jr. has wisely argued in a memo to his comrades, the filibuster is crucial to conservatism. By his account, without it, majorities would exist to raise the minimum wage; reform labor law to make new union organizing easier; ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment; reduce greenhouse-gas emissions; and close the "gun-show loophole." I'm not a gun-control fan myself, but everything else on the list is a key priority. In the past, of course, the filibuster is most famous for its role in delaying the dawn of civil rights. Less well known is that it was integral to the defeat of Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1993. If liberals ever get another chance to go for comprehensible health-care reform, the filibuster will once again rear its ugly head.

At any given moment, the filibuster rule helps the minority party. Right now, that's Democrats. But taking the long view, the filibuster is bad for Democrats. Ideally, you'd want to get rid of it at just the ideal moment. But, realistically, that can't be done; only minority-party acquiescence will let it happen. Now's a good time for Democrats to show some rare appreciation for the importance of long-term thinking and let the right shoot itself in the foot -- rather than giving them yet another tool with which to rile up their base."

Excellent points and a very good argument, however Paul Waldman at The Gadflyer has his own thoughts on Yglesias's opinion. "Matt's argument is pretty persuasive - at the same time, so is the argument that if there's one thing you do want filibusters for, it's judicial nominees, since unlike legislation they can't just be undone."

Waldman goes on to say "So what if the secret plan is to win by losing? It works this way: Democrats goad Senate Republicans into eliminating the filibuster. Democrats are thus given a political issue that fits nicely with the larger story they're telling about Republicans: that they are corrupt, drunk with power, in thrall to a tiny group of theocrats, etc. The filibuster issue becomes part of the 2006 campaign narrative. But in the long run, the end of the filibuster helps enact lots of progressive legislation, and Democrats win in two ways, all for the relatively minor cost of a few extremist judges."

Waldman makes a good case, but what happens if the DEMS do not win back congress, and the GOP is able to throw in some judges who manage to overturn Roe v. Wade? Will it have been worth it then? Not to mention, if we allow the majority to do whatever it pleases then we set the stage for a sort of legal anarchy as laws change every few years simply because one party regains control of congress. Are we really going to let things such as abortion be legalized and criminalized every few years just because the majority keeps changing?

Although the filibuster has caused the Democrats its share of problems, America needs the stability that comes with the downside of this process. If enough people want to see legislation passed, then it will happen, regardless of party politics. The Democrats must not lose the right to a minority filibuster, not only because it could undo many of the great Democratic achievements in the last one hundred years, but because our future as a nation depends on the stability that a filibuster helps deliver. In good times, and in bad, the filibuster is necessary, and on the whole is good for the American people.

Ryan Oddey
Ryan@TAFMess.com