How removing the Senate Filibuster leads to further polarization in the United States and give greater threat to Democracy
Senate and House Democrats, including prominent figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA), have voiced support for abolishing the Senate filibuster to advance President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda. Senator Warren, in a tweet on March 1, 2021, stated, “In 2019, I said that if Mitch McConnell used the filibuster to hold a Democratic Senate majority hostage…we would need to get rid of the filibuster. It is time.” In contrast, Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) adamantly opposes ending the filibuster, affirming she is “against eliminating the filibuster” and remains steadfast in her stance. Similarly, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has firmly opposed ending the filibuster, making his position unequivocally clear in an op-ed titled “I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster.” With these differing viewpoints among senators and representatives, the question arises: what exactly is the Senate filibuster that has sparked discussion on social media and television?”
The Senate filibuster, a procedural tactic employed in the U.S. Senate, allows a senator to engage in extended debate on a bill with the aim of obstructing or delaying Senate action on the bill. This obstruction can continue indefinitely unless overridden by Rule XXII, commonly known as the Cloture Rule. Cloture imposes a time limit, typically 30 hours, on the consideration of a bill and requires a three-fifths vote of the full Senate (60 out of 100 senators) to end the filibuster.
In the absence of a filibuster-proof majority, typically 60 senators, the majority party may need to compromise to advance legislation, even though only a simple majority (51 out of 100 senators) is required to pass a bill in the Senate. Past presidents, including President Obama, have faced challenges in achieving their legislative objectives due to filibusters. For example, President Obama’s “DREAM Act” in 2010 encountered resistance and ultimately failed to pass due to filibustering tactics in the Senate.
The Senate filibuster serves as a mechanism that incentivizes bipartisan collaboration, as seen in the recent bipartisan effort behind H.R. bill 3684, known as the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.” This bill, which garnered support from both parties and surpassed the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, exemplifies how bipartisanship can bridge political divides and address national priorities like infrastructure.
In a time of heightened political polarization, fostering bipartisanship is crucial for healing the divisions that have plagued the country for years. If Senate Democrats move to abolish the filibuster, it could exacerbate these divisions and deepen political polarization. Moreover, such a move would potentially undermine President Biden’s message of unity and collaboration, which was central to his 2020 Presidential campaign.
By eschewing bipartisanship and opting for a path of unilateral action, Democrats risk exacerbating democratic erosion in the United States. Instead of promoting compromise and cooperation, abolishing the filibuster could signal a departure from democratic principles and further entrench political divisions.
Considering the political landscape, Democrats should exercise caution before attempting to abolish the Senate filibuster. They must heed the lessons of their past actions, notably in 2013 when they opted for the ‘nuclear’ route, eliminating the filibuster for executive and judicial nominees, except for Supreme Court appointments. This move was prompted by Republican obstructionism against President Obama’s nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) famously cautioned, “You will no doubt come to regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think,” a prediction that proved accurate.
The repercussions of this decision became evident when President Trump assumed office in 2017. Notably, controversial nominees like Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education and Jeff Sessions for Attorney General sailed through confirmation without significant Democratic obstruction. Furthermore, Republican Senators abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, facilitating the confirmation of Justices Neil Gorsuch in 2017, Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, all without substantial Democratic opposition.
During this period, it was the Democratic Party advocating against the abolishment of the filibuster. A bipartisan group consisting of 32 Senate Democrats and 28 Republicans underscored their support for preserving Senate filibuster rules by signing a letter addressed to Senate Leaders.
One could argue that in highly polarized times, the filibuster fails to promote bipartisanship. Instead, it grants the minority party veto power, allowing it to block significant legislation that the majority party was elected to enact. In such a scenario, voters in the United States must exercise their electoral power by electing representatives committed to bipartisan collaboration between the majority and minority parties. A concerning trend contributing to the nation’s divisions is the tendency for voters to support primary candidates who are perceived as more progressive or conservative than in the past, exemplified by figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib. Unfortunately, such candidates often prove reluctant to engage in bipartisan cooperation on critical issues, further exacerbating political gridlock.
In conclusion, while the elimination of the Senate filibuster might offer a political advantage to Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, as of 2021, such a move could exacerbate political polarization in the United States, further eroding democracy. As former Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) aptly stated, “We should not deny the right of the minority to filibuster, but we need to do a much better job of making them own it.” Although the filibuster can be perceived as a hindrance to the legislative agenda of the majority party, it serves a crucial purpose that must not be overlooked. Abolishing it could ultimately fuel greater political divisions and undermine democracy in the United States.
I think you gave a really great overview on a topic that seems to allude much of the American public save the individuals who really enjoy politics or study politics. I also have to say I fully agree with you. Although there is no constitutional provision for the filibuster, and its existence can be accredited to the legislative gridlock that frustrates many American’s today, the existence of the filibuster is one rooted in purpose and getting rid of it would have substantial consequences. I am currently taking POLS4105 American Political Development and found the subject matter tends to overlap quite nicely with what we have been learning in Democratic Erosion. In APD, we learned just how the filibuster came to be. The Framers set up Congress in a way that the two chambers have set their own rules and grown into their own institutions separate of each other. In the early 1800s, the House adopted the Previous Question Motion, allowing Representatives to go back to the previous question no matter what stage of debate on a piece of legislation they are in, or if the vote has already been done. The Senate never adopted this, and instead adopted the filibuster. Because of the Senate’s lack of previous question motion, the filibuster has been allowed to thrive in history. With a history rooted so deep in the early days of our democracy, I think it would be political suicide for Biden to get rid of a procedure that the Senate prides its exclusive practice of. Especially since Biden is eligible for reelection.