Make Them Filibuster?
Whenever people start complaining about the filibuster and minority obstructionism, it’s not long before a supporter of the majority says something like this, from reader Len’s comments: “I say make them filibuster. I want to see them on C-SPAN tying up the senate with their BS. See what the citizens think of that.” Recently a spate of writers and politicos have offered Democrats the same advice—make Republicans stage a real, live filibuster.
It’s not likely to happen. And if it did, it almost certainly wouldn’t work. Jonathan Bernstein explains:
[T]here is simply no way, under Senate rules, for the majority to prevail over a determined filibuster conducted by multiple Senators and supported by at least forty-one Senators. No way. Can’t be done. If the majority forced a live filibuster — forced the minority to talk indefinitely — then, well, they would talk. Forever. Until, eventually, the majority, which has other responsibilities (appropriations bills, other must-pass bills) admitted a humiliating defeat, and moved on.
The make-them-filibuster boosters think the majority can just “wait it out.” But what exactly would they be waiting for? There are two possibilities.
1. Waiting for Mr. Smith
First, it could mean waiting for a filibustering senator to collapse from exhaustion, à la Mr. Smith. But if more than one senator is involved, each can yield the floor to a cohort, thus maintaining the filibuster indefinitely—so long as there are 41 who support them against a cloture vote. (For the uninitiated, a cloture vote is called to close debate and proceed to final vote on a matter. It takes 60 votes to win on a cloture motion, to “invoke” cloture. The final vote, whether on a bill, an amendment, a cabinet appointment, or whatever, requires only 51 votes to win.) However, while it is relatively easy for the minority to maintain the filibuster, it is a real burden for the majority to wait it out, as they must maintain a quorum of fifty senators in the chamber (or close enough to appear within 15 minutes of a quorum call). Without a quorum, the Senate can’t do business, and the filibustering senator can sit and relax until a quorum returns.
2. Waiting for Mr. Godot
Second, “waiting it out” could mean waiting for a member of the minority to defect and vote for cloture. The inevitability of such a defection is the hidden premise of the reductio ad C-SPAN argument, but the exact mechanism which would bring about the defection is often not sufficiently scrutinized. With the minority’s ridiculous antics on constant display, it is assumed, public pressure will mount against the obstructionists and vulnerable moderates will cave. This is known as attrition.
I wouldn’t dismiss this possibility entirely.1 But considering the dynamics of the situation, it’s an extremely risky strategy for the majority. It’s a longshot, and it could easily backfire.
Defection isn’t very likely, because in most circumstances, it won’t be in the potential defector’s best interests. Generally, a senator’s position on major legislation will come down to an assessment of electoral prospects: the reelection calculus. Politicians are rational maximizers of political capital. Once a filibuster is underway, they will have already done the math. And even if the filibuster turns out to be more unpopular than unexpected—unpopular enough to influence crucial swing voters in the next election—a potential defector stands to lose the support of the party base by betraying its cause. Without the base, the reelection calculus may be grim indeed.
Lastly, while the spectacle of senatorial absurdism will undoubtedly move public opinion, it’s far from certain that the movement will be toward passage of the majority’s bill. The floor speeches, for one thing, would not need to be as ridiculous as the make-them-filibuster crowd likes to think. Seth Masket:
[A] true filibuster today probably wouldn’t involve a whole lot of phone book-reading. [...] Today, there are dozens of policy shops and hundreds of conservative writers who could generate days and days of material for filibustering Republicans to read. Fox would likely televise many of the speeches live and portray the filibuster as a great patriotic act. If anything, the Republicans would control the discussion during a filibuster more than they do now.
Indeed, Republicans are likely to tell stories of hardship and woe—stories that you and I might think support the cause of reform—but conclude, in defiance of sense and logic, that the Democrats’ plan for “government takeover” will make it all worse. And then, as the Senate itself comes increasingly to represent government ineptitude, Republicans will drive the point home, as they so often do: Government can’t solve the problem, because government is broken. Nevermind that they’re the ones who broke it.
- I’ll post some thoughts later about how an attrition strategy could be successful. [↩]
Comments
2 Responses to “Make Them Filibuster?”
Leave a Reply
About Me
- I write this blog.
-
My twitter feed:
OK, it may be true that making them filibuster healthcare reform is a bad idea. So start small. The GOPers threaten to filibuster everything, so give them a shot at something small and see what happens. I do not know what that legislation is, but I am sure these is something like naming a post office that would work for a start.
What is the reason for the filibuster? Is it intended to allow one person a chance to slow something down or for 41% of Senators to break the Republic?
[...] will be the loser in a filibuster standoff. First, they lose on the bill being filibustered. As I mentioned previously, there’s simply no way for the majority to break the filibuster if the minority controls 41 [...]