The ugly—but true—history of the filibuster

 

George Bernard Shaw once wrote, ‘politics is the last refuge of scoundrels,’ paraphrasing the 1775 statement by Samuel Johnson that ‘patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.’ Both these statements, regardless of the original meaning, are all too true. One has but to look at the current back-and-forth going on in US political circles about the fate of the filibuster to see this.

      The concept of the filibuster is not new. It existed in fact in ancient Rome. According to historians, this technique was first used by Cato the Younger to thwart the agenda of Julius Caesar, his political rival.

      The  filibuster, a name that comes from the Dutch word for pirate, is in essence a hijacking of debate, a tactic that allows the minority, in the absence of a compelling argument, to thwart the rule of the majority. It has been elevated to the highest form of mischief in the United States, especially in the United States Senate.

      In the manner of the Sophists, who could spin philosophy to accommodate any political situation, and who could use verbal legerdemain to prove the up was down in order to gain an advantage, American politicians on both sides of the debate about the filibuster, use spin to press their case. Those who argue for it say that it protects the rights of the minority party and encourages consensus, while those who oppose claim that it subverts majority rule and causes gridlock. Both are right, and both claim that history and the US Constitution support their view.

      Used appropriately, this obstructive tactic can protect an oppressed minority—except that my research doesn’t show a case of it being used for that purpose in the US. On the contrary, during the Civil Rights movement, southern senators often tried to use it to block laws that would protect minorities in this country, such as preventing passage of a law making lynching a federal crime, or their unsuccessful efforts to block the civil rights laws of the 1957 and 1964.

      The practice of endless debate to block legislation became popular in the US in the 1850s, during which time it was given a name, inspired by the Filibusters, mercenary sailors who tried to overthrow governments in Central and South America. It was primarily used to block legislation on economic, slavery, and civil rights issues.

      When a single senator blocked Woodrow Wilson’s plan to arm merchant ships to protect them from German attacks during World War I, Wilson demanded that the congress adopt a rule to prevent the hijacking of future legislation. Prior to this time, the Senate and the House used a ‘previous question’ motion to stop debate. In 1806, the Senate deleted this rule, but the House retained it. In response to Wilson’s demand, the Senate adopted a ‘cloture rule’ requiring a two-thirds vote, which was subsequently changed to a ‘three-fifths’ rule to end filibusters.

      The Senate’s cloture rule works after a fashion in a normal, sane environment, but in today’s hyperpartisan world where one party reflexively opposes anything proposed by the other party, and with a one-seat majority in the Senate, even the threat of filibuster, known as a ‘stealth filibuster’, can put the brakes on any legislation.

      The use of the filibuster exploded during the Civil Rights movement and were used systematically by southern segregationists to block or attempt to block any attempts to extend equal rights to black Americans, such as their successful blocking of legislation that would have outlawed poll taxes that were designed specifically to keep blacks from voting.

      Currently, if there is a credible threat that 41 senators will refuse to vote for cloture on a bill, it will never reach the floor for a vote. If this is democracy, I think I must have missed something in my history classes decades ago.

      Those who claim the Constitution supports the filibuster need to go back to school. It does permit the congress to set its own rules on debates, but never specifically mentions such an obstructive tactic, and history shows that its use has always been problematic and mercenary.

      It’s long past time for the Senate to adopt rules similar to the House to manage this disruptive tactic. Never again should anyone have to listen to an endless reading of ‘Green Eggs and Ham or endure over 24 hours of s lawmaker droning on and on about nothing of consequence. And we certainly should not have our futures put in jeopardy by threats.

      The Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body of wise individuals who are there to serve the interests of the People. It’s time they got back to it.