There is an interesting article in today’s Salon in which the author (Farhad Manjoo) argues that it is not in Democrats’ long-term interests to oppose Republican efforts to ban the filibuster. In theory, I think I agree, but in practice, it’s a bit trickier.
The main element of Manjoo’s argument is that the filibuster is esssentially a tool for maintaining the status quo. Democrats, being the more liberal of the two major parties, tend to have policy objectives that involve governmental change, reform, and activism; in order to execute these objectives, they must pass large pieces of legislation. Republicans, meanwhile, are more conservative, and tend to oppose expansion of government in the form of new programs and initiatives. While the existence of the filibuster as a parliamentary tactic may appeal to Democrats right now, it will be more useful in the long run to Republicans should the Democrats return to the majority. According to Manjoo, the better strategic move for the Democrats would be to let the Republicans kill off the filibuster—that way, the future Republican minorities would have no means of opposing progressive Democratic legislation.
As I stated above, this argument seems reasonable in theory. However, given the current context in which Democrats have to make this decision, I see a number of problems. First (and most obvious, I think), the Democratic majorities to which Manjoo refers are entirely hypothetical, whereas the current Democratic minority is only too real. While I try to remain hopeful about Democrats’ prospects in the 2006 and 2008 elections, I think we have to be realistic, and not pin our hopes on a magical return to power in the next few years.
Second, while Manjoo claims that he is thinking about the long-term impact of this decision, he completely ignores the fact the getting rid of the filibuster will leave Democrats with no way to block the President’s attempts to pack the federal courts (and possibly the Supreme Court) with right-wing conservatives. This possibility, much like the aforementioned Democratic minority, is very real.
Finally, “the nuclear option” that Senate Republicans are currently threatening, at least as I understand it, would not get rid of the filibuster entirely, but simply as a means of blocking nominees to the federal bench. According to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President appoints federal judges “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” and Senate Republicans are claiming (erroneously) that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional because the prevent the Senate from fulfilling this duty. Even if this claim were true (which it is not, mind you), it would have no bearing on the filibustering of legislation.
It’s here that Manjoo’s argument really falls apart. If, as he suggests, Democrats were to allow Republicans to rewrite the rules of the Senate to ban judicial filibusters, what situation would they be left with? They would have given up the only means at their disposal to oppose the Republicans’ attempts to load the judiciary with conservative nut-jobs, and if, at some point in the hypothetical future they were to retake the majority in the Senate, they would still face Republican filibusters of their legislation.
Indeed, that sounds like an excellent strategy…