In the last few weeks, we've been focusing on, among other things, the reasons that the government can be inefficient. From Iron Triangles to dictatorial committees, it's clear that there are many. In my opinion, the least sensical of these legislative speed-bumps, is filibustering.
We've talked about filibustering in class, but it essentially allows any senator to protest legislation he or she disagrees with by filling the time with words. This has lead to marathon speeches, where senators will talk about the first thing that comes to mind. The record of 24 hours and 18 minutes has remained unbroken since 1857, when Sen. Strom Thurmond spoke to delay the voting on the 1957 Civil Rights Bill. During that time, he recited historical documents, which included the Declaration of Independence and George Washington's farewell address. This was the longest out of an organized front of filibusters against the same bill, which all told, delayed the voting by 57 days. This is ridiculous, and it's only gotten more so. In 2013, to protest Obamacare, Ted Cruz spoke overnight, including a reading of Dr. Seuss' "Green Eggs and Ham" in its entirety.
Originally, since the practice's beginnings in the 1850s, both the House and Senate were able to filibuster, but it was removed from the House due to its rapidly increasing population. Only 75 years later was cloture introduced, which requires a 2/3 vote to stop a filibuster. Obviously, in such a divided senate, it's almost impossible for Senate Democrats to stop Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell from talking for 6 hours to stop a Net-Neutrality, climate change, or infrastructure bill.
In 2018, 73% of bills stopped dead in the Senate without even being discussed, after making it through the House. While not all of these bills were complete game changers, among them were multiple election security bills, which would have safeguarded our vital democratic election processes.
President Trump has spoken for the removal of filibustering on multiple occasions, as he's shown frustration with the apparent lack of action in our legislators. This sentiment is echoed by many Republicans, but Sen. McConnell disagrees. He argues that Democrats are the true problem, opting to obstruct any bills which they disagree with.
Regardless of who's at fault, filibustering is slowing down the legislative process with non-relevant nonsense. Neither Republicans nor Democrats like it, and the citizens are increasingly skeptical about the efficiency of our government. Why is it still here?
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/396401-569-house-passed-bills-await-action-in-the-senatehttps://thehill.com/homenews/house/396401-569-house-passed-bills-await-action-in-the-senate
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
https://www.thoughtco.com/longest-filibusters-in-us-history-3322332
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/30/why-is-mitch-mcconnell-blocking-election-security-bills-good-question/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/09/25/transcript-sen-ted-cruzs-filibuster-against-obamacare/?utm_term=.b7fad4fcb9f7
I agree with everything you say here. Originally, the filibuster was intended to to 'ensure minority opinions were heard and understood' before a senate vote. (https://www.nolabels.org/understanding-the-filibuster/). Now though, the filibuster has been used more than 1300 times since 1917 and it would be hard to argue all or even the majority of the times it was used were intended to 'protect minority opinion.' Instead it is used as a way to prevent the majority from making change, as 11% of the country have been able to keep important legislation from being discussed by the senate.
ReplyDeleteI think something really important to touch on is the bit about election security. The tactics to undermine free and fair elections, I believe, are the most nefarious. Although McConnell blocks various Democratic bills that would ostensibly help the nation, safety lies in the fact that the folks who want to pass these bills can later gain political power if they claim the spot of majority leader. If election security is undermined, the very foundations of democracy that ensure that other parties can reach office are threatened. And that, I think, is a reason why the filibuster may be especially dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with every point you made. It's also frustrating when both sides of the government blame the problem on one another and refuse to actually fix the problem. I also agree that too many bills die without ever getting discussed.
ReplyDeleteI thought this article was nice and interesting and it was a good example of the inefficiencies that our country's legislative process takes. I wonder if they will ever move to remove or limit the filibuster further because the vote for cloture is so difficult to pass because the senate is divided 50/50 and you need 60 votes. It's obviously evident that the modern filibuster is merely being abused to stop legislation in some of these cases so maybe they could implement a time limit or try to draw majority/minority sides to work on their own opinions so that their points can be specific and concise.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points. Filibusters, while entertaining to hear about, really cover the scope of how inefficient our government is. It angers me to think that instead of trying to reach a compromise, our politicians would rather talk everyone's ears off about random crap, including a children's picture book. The partisan divide that plagues our country can be beneficial if we have open minded politicians, but as of right now it is quite detrimental to the efficiency of our government.
ReplyDelete