Filibusted

Filibusters are important. Most recently, we this on display in Texas when state Senator Wendy Davis stood on her feet for 12 hours to decry and deny passage of a strict anti-abortion bill. The filibuster not only gives politicians the opportunity to make a principled moral stand, it can postpone or prevent the passage of harmful legislation.

The flip side to this, of course, is that the filibuster can also postpone or prevent the passage of necessary legislation. Sadly, given the inane state of American politics, it has become an easy way for both parties to ignore the hardships and realities of governing and cower behind ideology. In most instances, Wendy Davis being an exception, filibusters no longer even require a speaker! One party or the other can just threaten to filibuster and unless there are 60 people willing to vote otherwise, no one even has to exert themselves to prevent the review, let alone the passage, of legislation. The filibuster has become problematic to say the least.

In the last few years, there has been talk among Democrats of amending the filibuster rules to prevent Republicans from preventing them from doing anything, which is exactly what Republicans have been doing. Rewind to the early 2000s and it was the Republican majority threatening to change filibuster rules to the chagrin of Democrats who overused the tactic.

The current mess around the filibuster doesn't even involve legislation, it involves cabinet appointments - and also some judicial appointments, but Democrats are leaving those alone for now. Republicans have filibustered a number of the president's appointments, so he installed them while Congress was in recess, effectively bypassing the Senate that wouldn't even review their candidacies. Republicans are outraged and accuse the president of bypassing the legislative branch. Democrats are outraged and say the president has the right to nominate cabinet ministers so the executive branch can function. Both arguments carry some validity, but - surprise! - only one political party has given up on governing. The president's second term is more than half a year old and he still hasn't been able to fill his cabinet positions...

I don't support eliminating the filibuster, but I do support functional government. Perhaps the rules need to be amended somewhat; you know, maybe a tool to prevent legislation from being passed by allowing someone to rant against it actually needs a speaker for example. Perhaps 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster is too many in an age when it seems as though individual politicians have largely lost the ability to think for themselves and rarely dare to break rank with their party and give compromise a shot. Whatever the solution we need one, because we cannot stop protecting the rights of the opposition party to voice its opinions, but we also can't allow them to prevent the forward progress voted for by the majority of Americans. I hope the Senate can find a way to get the president's candidates confirmed rather than attempting to change the filibuster, but if this is what the modern filibuster looks like, we need to do something.