A lot of people see the
filibuster as another antique oddity, like the Electoral College -- or your appendix -- that ought to come out. But there are
very important differences between the two. While the Electoral College is a Constitutional glitch that doesn't work as intended and actually discourages democratic participation, the filibuster is a carefully constructed rule that, despite appearances, actually makes the Senate work the Framers' will.
The filibuster is essentially a braking mechanism. It has been used by the forces of reaction (as opposed to progress) in the past, most notably when Southern senators filibustered Civil Rights legislation. But that case points out that the filibuster is not a veto on change, but only a brake on it; it's a rule that evolved to ensure that the Senate would be the slow-percolating, let's-think-this-over chamber that the Founders intended as a check to the designed-in quick responsiveness of the House.
During the Civil Rights struggle, the filibuster expressed many Southerners' fear of desegregation, the black vote, etc., but it couldn't stop positive change, because in the end the filibustering delay only made the American people's will toward positive change more evident.
In the present case, the radical Republicans know that the great majority of Americans are NOT behind them in pushing ultraconservative judges. They know that the delay of filibustering would only expose the narrowness of their political base. In issues without 9/11 scare tactics attached,
such as right-wing judges and Social Secuity, these guys are in trouble-- and they know it.
The filibuster helps make the Senate what it is: a body that moves slowly enough to encourage consideration of minority concerns, and to discourage both the long-term tyranny of majorities and the hasty tactics by which powerfully backed minorites -- such as the GOP's current radical wing -- can exploit national emergencies to effect profound and detrimental changes to our way of life.
When trying to asses the filibuster's usefulness and legitimacy, it's helpful to compare its history and origins with those of the Electoral College.
The Electoral College was a fundamental error in the Founders' scheme. It didn't work well from the start, since it was incapable of coping with party politics, and needed almost immediate amendment -- the 12th Amendment, to be exact -- to make it somewhat workable. (It could not be got rid of entirely, as some politicians were in agreement with the essentially elitist, anti-one man/one vote thinking behind its creation.)
The College has only caused trouble ever since. While some try to explain its potential to overturn the popular vote as the Framers' designed-in check to regionalism or party feeling or what-have-you, history contradicts such postdated rationales. What's more, the Electoral College has only overruled the popular vote in cases of outright election fraud -- or, to describe the Supreme Court's 2000 appointment of George W. Bush more politely, extreme interventions and manipulations. It is indeed an arcane and dangerous institution, one that we need to abolish before it does the country still more damage.
The filibuster, on the other hand, is (like the 12th Amendment) a patch devised to correct some of the Constitution's weaknesses. The Founders intended the Senate as a go-slow chamber, but it wasn't slow enough, as designed, to represent minority opinion and make all sides feel they'd at least been heard --- which is a crucial function of legislative bodies, if countries are going to stay in one piece.
It's worth emphasizing that point: If large minorities feel they have no voice in a system, history shows that the results -- political and social polarization, violent dissent, even civil war and revolution -- are far worse than the frustrations of, say, having one's Civil Rights bills or nominees filibustered.
The filibuster is, in essence, a free society's acknowledgment that free debate on issues of extreme importance should not be suppressed for convenience's sake or at power's pleasure.
Some tradition or rule of delaying action is found in many legislatures: South Korean politicians, for example, dramatize their opposition by "cow walking" to the podium with infinite slowness.
The gabby American style was given official form by a rules change in 1806. Further changes limited its use, but few historians see these changes as failed attempts to eradicate the filibuster; rather, they were refinements to an important rule that most politicians in both parties wanted to preserve. The filibuster has survived for almost 200 years, through numerous crises, because -- up until now -- a majority of senators cherished the tradition of free speech even more than they honored party ideology or loyalty.
In other words, the filibuster is not (like the Electoral College) a mistaken holdover, but a painstakingly evolved solution that makes our often brutally winner-take-all system MORE representative, not less.
Here's my analogy: The Electoral College is like the Jim Crow (and still more antique) laws that restricted representation in our system to elites; the filibuster is like the Civil Rights laws that ensure that even our minorities have a chance to represent themselves powerfully (if not always successfully).
Thus, getting rid of the filibuster isn't like doing away with the "arcane" Electoral College: It's like getting rid of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I know, I know: That sounds melodramatic. We have strong emotional ties to the Voting Rights Act, and its achievements seem much greater than the annoying, unlovable filibuster's. But it's only an analogy, not an exact comparison, and with that proviso I'll say it again: The filibuster is the Senate's own Voting Rights Act. We mustn't let it go.
--- HistoryBuff
