The Filibuster’s Fragile Future: Why Common Ground Still Matters

Understanding the Filibuster’s Place in Today’s Politics

Let’s be honest here. Unless you are a political junkie (as I have been for more than 60 years), the odds are pretty good you do not even know what a filibuster is. As someone who could not change a spark plug (if we still have them) without assistance, my observation is not an assertion of superiority of any sort. However, the power of the filibuster is considerable in our current political ecosystem and worth some attention.

How 60 Votes Became the Magic Number

Without getting into a ton of details, what is important to keep in mind is that unless you can muster 60 votes in the Senate, a determined minority can put a halt to most matters requiring a vote in the chamber. Should that minority desire, they can filibuster the topic at hand. A filibuster is best described as an extended debate. As few as 41 Senators can just keep on talking and talking, preventing a vote. You see, shutting down this extended debate requires 60 votes. Up until this point, confirmation hinged on qualifications, not agreement on matters of policy.

When Compromise Was Still Possible

In a previous political world, the filibuster worked to force a compromise between those supporting and those opposing a given piece of legislation or nominee. That world has long ago ceased to exist. In response, the so-called “nuclear option,” a changing of the rules, allows a vote where a simple majority prevails.

The Temptation to Eliminate the Filibuster

The temptation is to make the change to a simple majority being enough to conduct all business before the chamber, when your party is in the majority. It puts an end to the filibuster. For a variety of reasons, I oppose the killing of the filibuster.

How Rule Changes Escalated: 2013 and 2017

In 2013, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got the rules changed (which only requires a simple majority) so that all appointees, save the FBI Director, could be confirmed by a simple majority. This also applied to federal judicial appointees, below the Supreme Court level.

It is safe to say the political climate has not moderated itself in the intervening years. In fact, in 2017, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who warned against changing the rules, extended the simple majority threshold for Supreme Court Justices to confirm Neil Gorsuch. Even his worst critics could not argue that Gorsuch was not qualified.

Why the Filibuster Still Matters

In the intervening years, the filibuster has withstood attempts to end it altogether. That would mean that basic pieces of legislation only required 50 votes when in the majority, since the Vice President can cast the tie-breaking vote to make it 51. When in the minority, you would need 51.

To his credit, Mitch McConnell never wavered in his commitment to preserve the filibuster for basic legislation. There is an exception when it is to address what is termed budget reconciliation (a topic for another day).

Recent Attempts to Eliminate It

During the Biden Administration, then Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer made repeated efforts to change the rules (again, requiring only a simple majority to do so) to flat-out kill the filibuster. Two Democrats, Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), refused to go along. In the 2024 elections, with both of these two retiring, Schumer campaigned promising an end to the filibuster if a Democratic majority was returned. Of course, that did not happen, and Republicans returned to the majority.

A Shutdown, a Push, and a Restraint

With the government shutdown, President Trump urged the Senate to end the filibuster. They have not yet done so, for which I am grateful, even agreeing with the President on the policy If there is an end put to any structural assistance to find common ground, let it come from the Democrats.

Why Codifying the Filibuster Is Impossible

After the 2024 elections, I sought the counsel and advice from experts on Senate rules and procedures to see if there was any way to have both parties agree to codify the filibuster from one session to another. My thinking was that if Republicans did this while we were in the majority, our influence would be preserved when we were in the minority. The simple answer is this cannot be done—each session, each chamber of Congress passes the rules under which it will operate. Any agreement, by definition, would not be binding.

The Real Issue: Political Pressure and Primary Fear

The problem is pretty simple. As witnessed by the shutdown, the power and influence of the most activist elements of each party carry an outsized impact. The fear is that if you do not toe the line, you will be subject to a primary. The public’s desire to find common ground collides head-on with the activist’s demand that their party’s members “stand on principle.” Oh, and every subject under the sun qualifies as a matter of principle.

What Should Count as a ‘Matter of Principle’?

My hope would be that the politics of governing were such that “finding common ground” would contribute to determining just what constitutes a “matter of principle.” Funding levels for public housing, deciding whether a qualified candidate will be allowed to serve in public positions only if they agree with you on policy, and the like, is many things. A matter of principle is not one of them.

Remember This…

Remember this: When the filibuster serves to bring people together, it can be a very good thing. When it is nothing more than a tool for the minority to prevent legislation and individuals they oppose, it will be doomed to the dustbin of history. What do you think?