In Defense of the Filibuster
Despite its use to obstruct the will of the majority, the filibuster fills a critical role in the Senate: it encourages prudence in making law.
December 24, 2010 - 2:10 am
It seems a certainty that one of the first orders of business when the Senate convenes for the new session on January 5, 2011, will be some kind of reform of the rules governing the filibuster. Proposals have been floating around the Hill for several months and range from lowering the 60-vote threshold for cloture, to forcing filibustering senators to maintain control of the floor by making them speak.
Few would argue that the manner in which both parties over the last decade have abused the filibuster makes for good government. Reforms that encourage efficiency while still protecting minority rights may even be desirable. But the reasoning behind the use of the filibuster remains valid, even if we must occasionally put up with obstructionism and gridlock.
Is there anyone who doesn’t choke up a little watching Jimmy Stewart defend his honor and good name in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington by carrying on with a one-man filibuster for nearly 24 hours?
It’s silly, yes. And there is something that would have ended Senator Smith’s quixotic quest long before he collapsed in an exhausted heap on the Senate floor, the forces of evil seemingly triumphant against him: the call of nature. But at the time, Hollywood refused to recognize that humans had bladders or that there was even a need for a bathroom, so Jimmy Stewart was able to stand on the floor of the Senate for nearly 24 hours, reading recipes, quoting from the United States Code, the Bible, and any book within reach.
Finally, his voice raspy and weak, Stewart croaks out a paean to liberty in a peroration that is both schmaltzy and tearfully inspiring:
Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask. Get up there with that lady that’s up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won’t just see scenery; you’ll see the whole parade of what Man’s carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so’s he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That’s what you’d see. There’s no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties. … Great principles don’t get lost once they come to light. They’re right here; you just have to see them again!
The problem with Mr. Smith’s filibuster wasn’t so much that it wasn’t realistic. Senator Huey Long (D-LA) carried on a one-man filibuster in 1935 against a bill to extend FDR’s National Recovery Act for 14 hours. Just recently, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) spoke for 8 hours 37 minutes against the tax compromise. What made Mr. Smith’s heroic speechifying ridiculous is that the filibuster has rarely been used to uphold cherished principles, much less defend the republic from unscrupulous and crooked lawmakers.
Historian Peter Carlson:
The colorful history of filibusters is a smorgasbord of idealism, cynicism, egomania, buffoonery and, if truth be told, a great deal of blatant racism.
Indeed, Mississippi’s notorious racist, Democratic Senator Theodore Bilbo, filibustered a 1938 anti-lynching bill to protect “Saxon civilization.” Recently deceased Democratic Senator Robert Byrd personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 hours. Numerous examples from the 19th and 20th centuries show that time after time, the House would pass legislation requiring equal rights for African Americans, only to see the bills languish in the Senate, filibustered to death by Southern senators.
One would think that with such a shameful past, simple justice would demand that the filibuster be consigned to the ash heap of history. After all, it’s easy to sympathize with the majority — Democrats now, Republicans prior to 2006 — when the device is used to obstruct the business of the Senate. There is an undemocratic stench that accompanies its use that is unbecoming of a great republic.