Reforming the Senate's Filibuster Rules and Practices

It's possible that on January 5^th, the still Democratic-majority Senate will take up a procedural matter that could prove to be important.  We know about the much-lamented, increasingly used filibuster, whereby it takes 60 votes to attain cloture on debate so that a simple up-or-down vote on a bill can occur.  It's even worse than that since senators can obstruct things at several points along the way, not just when it comes time to decide on whether to allow a vote.  I've heard it reported that all Democratic senators now agree that Majority Leader Harry Reid ought to bring up the matter on the first day of the new session.  Senator Reid has said in the past that reforming the filibuster is something he wants to do, so who knows?  It could happen this time.  The idea seems to be that at the first meeting every two years, senators can change their procedural rules with a simple majority -- the three-fifths-for-cloture and two-thirds-to-amend-the-rules elements of Senate Rule XXII supposedly aren't in effect at that initial moment.  If so, a senatorial "big bang" could give us a new political universe.  The Senate's site is excellent, by the way, and their rules are available at Rules of the Senate.  They even offer materials dedicated to key topics, as they do for Cloture.

I know there are pros and cons on this issue and it's one of those "be careful what you wish for" things.  I've written about it in the past, in my limited capacity as an ignorant lizard who, inexplicably, follows human politics.  The biggest "con" is that if we were to do away with the filibuster altogether, a future majority Republican Senate would then be able to eliminate or at least greatly diminish programs like Social Security and Medicare.

But that kind of change isn't what the Democrats seem likely to go after -- instead, I've been reading that they might only want to tighten up the filibuster time-frame and keep it real in terms of the procedures involved, so that anybody who threatens to start a filibuster will have to be up for one of those Mr. Smith Goes to Washington scenarios, where the obstructers have to talk a bill to death instead of just saying they plan to do it.

My sentiment is that the filibuster is like justice in at least one sense: it works best when it's not only done, but is seen to be done.  Justice shouldn't be accomplished in secret, and neither should a procedural gesture towards obstruction and nullification of bills that might otherwise become law.  The reason for this is that people lose faith in systems when they can't understand how or why things work.

A broader reason for reforming the filibuster is that it would restore a certain visual and even theatrical dimension to politics.  For a long time, we have allowed that dimension to be downplayed.  Politics used to be quite a spectator sport a hundred years ago, didn't it?  I suppose it still is at certain times -- presidential elections have their exciting moments, millions watch the debates and attend rallies, and so forth.  But it's not what it used to be.  So if senators want to obstruct a bill, let's see them doing it in an energetic, concentrated manner, not vaguely gesturing towards an intention of doing it.  A "handful of senators" may not be able to pass legislation, as the song goes, but they shouldn't always be able to obstruct the nation's business indefinitely, either.  

If people can see the obstruction taking place right before their eyes, they'll be in a better position to reflect on what's being obstructed: why it's being opposed by one side and supported by the other.  They should then be able to make their decision as to whether the naysayers are heroes or heartless villains, which decision should in turn influence the filibustering party to continue or stop what it's doing.  Sight has long been recognized as the most domineering of the five senses -- it not only influences us directly and immediately but also marks our judgments indelibly going into the future. 

In sum, while I don't want to see radical changes in the Senate's procedures because that could have far-reaching effects in how the country is governed and in what kinds of lives its citizens can lead, I see limited filibuster reform as a way to improve our prospects for remaining something close enough to a real republic to make it all worthwhile.  I also think it's mainly in the Democrats' interest to effect that limited reform because while the GOP has shown itself more than willing to use the filibuster as an engine of destruction against progress or even basic governance much of the time, I believe that the Democrats have generally used it in a grown-up way.  So it's not as "useful" to them as it is to the Republicans, and they stand to lose less clout by limiting it.  It should be there to use in dire cases, but not available simply to carry out some nihilistic program to keep the other side from ever doing anything.