Andrew is absolutely right that the filibuster has outlived its usefulness. One of the most fundamental political principles is that when you find a wedge issue that divides your opponent, you exploit the hell out of it.
Consider this: simply operating a functioning government is a wedge issue that divides Republicans!
The filibuster saves them from having to either implement or vote against extremely unpopular policies that the right wing wants to impose on the rest of the country. We should remove their best excuse and let them pass those unpopular policies and suffer the consequences, or fail to pass them and be savaged by their base.
Dick Cheney was key in our actually starting a war, and he did it with lies and exaggerations. How about setting the filibuster at 5? We need some means to slow down legislation, particularly when the party in charge of both houses actually represent a minority of voters.
Many people have a tendency to take institutions as given. They imagine that because an institution exists with a certain effect, that it was designed with that intention. There was no *intention* behind the filibuster. The filibuster was an accident, an omission in the Senate rules. The notion of it being this brilliant tool of compromise was an ex post rationalization by politicians who wanted to obstruct something relevant to them in the moment. The filibuster is, and has always been, anti democratic.
The most insidious effect of the filibuster is that it distorts the feedback loop between elections and policy outcomes. For voters to make even just halfway decent decisions, they need to be able to observe the effects of their choices. If delays are too long, or political decisions don't result in material changes, this becomes impossible for all but the most plugged in.
Throughout the 20th century, every major world democracy adjusted its institutions in line with evolving democratic norms. They expanded the franchise, reformed indirect electoral systems, and with the sole exception of the United States, those with bicameral systems reduced the authority of their upper chambers. Upper legislative chambers are mostly vestiges of noble rule, a compromise on the road to real democracy that enabled upper classes to keep a hand on the wheel. The Nordic countries even eliminated their upper houses entirely in the early 20th century!
But thanks to the filibuster, and then cloture, our Senate became more and more powerful. Cloture made obstruction easier, not harder. Not due to any act of an intelligent governmental designer, but entirely due to changes made in the heat of a specific policy debate. Because that is how institutions are formed-- based on expedience. If we don't abolish the filibuster, we should at least abolish cloture and if senators really want to stop Senate business, they can stand on their feet and do it the old fashioned way.
It is long past time that CNN should have cut Scott Jennings loose. He is a smirking, disingenuous whiner. Does not offer reasoned conservative POV, but simply a sycophantic party line.
We used to have a filibuster of sorts in the Texas Senate, and that chamber could generally be counted on to moderate bad ole bills coming from the Texas House. Then Light Gov zealot Dan Patrick eliminated it, and we now have egregious, sectarian abortion laws, nonsensical redistricting, bathroom bills, and various culture wars rules masquerading as legislation. Be careful what you wish for.
"The jalopy that is Congress is struggling laboriously down the highway, fighting the brake, smoke puffing ominously from under the hood—and here comes Trump, saying, 'Come on, baby, you ever been on a motorcycle?'”
My usual reminder of what we all know but omit in the interest of "shortcut" explanations: It's not just Trump who says that, but countless co-conspirators who do everything from strategic planning to finding sound bites that sell to the "base," to the grunt work. And they already outnumber all the Senators of both parties.
Can we please stop making a point of saying “Trump is right about _____”? …as though Trump, in a moment of original thinking came up with whatever idea he lucks into not being wrong about?
Trump could spew completely random thoughts and he’d be right far more often than he already is. Almost no politician is wrong at a higher clip than Trump. Yes, some of the almost entirely wrong diarrhea that dribbles from his mouth accidentally fails to be horribly, ridiculously, malevolently wrong. Must we give him credit for “being right” when this accident happens?
If I ask a toddler 20 basic questions about politics, he or she will not give 20 dreadfully wrong answers. The toddler will be “right” some portion of the time. Maybe even better than half the time, if the questions are yes/no, should we/shouldn’t we type questions!
But we wouldn’t say, “y’know, the toddler has a point about XYZ!” Because…because it’s a toddler, and we don’t seek political wisdom from toddlers.
Trump is wrong much more than a toddler. Don’t say he’s right about things. Maybe the filibuster should end, but Trump isn’t “right” about that. He just accidentally agrees with what OTHER people are right about.
Bill K: I wonder if you ever felt Bulwark would go so far beyond its initial idea of defending the old conservative ideals from ruination by the MAGA crazies in general and DT in particular?
I was any early subscriber because I thought this was a very necessary role that was hard to find elsewhere.
Now, however, it seems that Bulwark subscribers share only one goal with me, that being getting rid of Trumpism and saving our democracy. Obviously that needs to be goal number one.
But what are Bulwark’s other goals? How about supporting moderate ideas and candidates of either party? How about arguing for eliminating
partisan redistricting? Maximizing the number of purple districts? I could go on, but you get my point.
The eventual elimination of anti democratic politics is the long term goal, imo. Just getting rid of Trumpism is only the starting point. And ending the Filibuster is a terrible idea unless the “fars” in both parties have been mostly eliminated by proper districting.
In short - the filibuster makes it too hard to pass legislation, since it requires 60 votes to move most bills forward. This gridlock means that many laws and policies—both good and bad—never get fully tested by being enacted or repealed.
Without legislative turnover, failed or outdated ideas can’t be clearly proven wrong through experience. They linger in political debate as “zombie ideas”—policies that should be dead because they don’t work, but survive because they’re never tried and discredited in practice.
Majoritarian policymaking allows learning through trial and error. If a party wins power, passes its agenda, and that agenda fails, voters can hold it accountable and elect the other party to reverse course. This dynamic helps a democracy learn what works. The filibuster disrupts that process by blocking experimentation and accountability.
Result: Instead of democratic iteration, we get stalemate and blame-shifting. No party can fully implement its vision, and voters can’t see which ideas succeed or fail.
In short, Klein argues that the filibuster keeps American politics stuck, arguing over "zombie ideas" that never die because the system never lets them live or die through actual governance.
This former conservative thinks that the real problem is that the Senate has evolved/devolved into a grotesquely anti-democratic (small d!) body. It might have made sense in 1787 to have two senators per state as a means of getting buy-in to the Constitution. Also, at that time, the "states" were tiny little, provincial backwaters with no more than 750k people (Virginia), including persons otherwise treated as 3/5ths persons, albeit with no representation. But today, when CA, with 40 million people, and WY, with less than 600k, both get two senators, something is seriously awry. That's about a 67:1 disparity in representation. It's frankly unsustainable. And it means that 39 million or so people in CA, as an example, are being taxed without representation.
Yes, it will take a constitutional amendment to adjust senatorial representation to a sustainable level. The Republic may blow apart. But the structure definitely needs *serious* revision if it is to survive. It was *never intended* to persist for 250 years. Ask the ghost of Thomas Jefferson, for example.
Eliminating the filibuster under such grossly un-democratic circumstances would merely compound the problem. At least, now, the grossly underrepresented states can band together to stop all of the tiny, economically almost insignificant states, from imposing their will. And, of course, the tiny, almost economically insignificant states can band together to thwart the will of the vast majority. At least that arrangement results in stasis, gridlock, or whatever you want to call it.
well what we really need is a "vote of no supply" which is what we have now in our congress (a govt hamstrung/unable to determine spending is... well not much of a govt) which would then go to a snap election... just imagine the fun. so the filibuster would then be -- in "balance"... that is bounded by a natural check on those employing it to well face or be willing to face an election on their dearly held belief that led them to such an extreme act in office. and anyway something like that...
I know Andrew said "maybe" but when was a time when Congress was getting too muscular with its lawmaking was a real political concern. I suspect he means the New Deal years.
Is everyone now practicing The Efficient Breach? I vaguely remember this from Contracts class. I think it came out of U.Chi. law school, the law and economics movement, and goes something like this: If the total cost of not holding up your end of a contract, including monetary penalties, fees, lost business, etc., is less than the cost of adhering to it, then you should breach it.
Trump changes his mind because he can, "thanks SCOTUS." But Big Law owes it to their clients to get out of their "deals" with him.
Andrew is absolutely right that the filibuster has outlived its usefulness. One of the most fundamental political principles is that when you find a wedge issue that divides your opponent, you exploit the hell out of it.
Consider this: simply operating a functioning government is a wedge issue that divides Republicans!
The filibuster saves them from having to either implement or vote against extremely unpopular policies that the right wing wants to impose on the rest of the country. We should remove their best excuse and let them pass those unpopular policies and suffer the consequences, or fail to pass them and be savaged by their base.
The Chesterton Fence was new to me. Appreciated the link. Can we see that fence from our Overton Window?
Dick Cheney was key in our actually starting a war, and he did it with lies and exaggerations. How about setting the filibuster at 5? We need some means to slow down legislation, particularly when the party in charge of both houses actually represent a minority of voters.
Many people have a tendency to take institutions as given. They imagine that because an institution exists with a certain effect, that it was designed with that intention. There was no *intention* behind the filibuster. The filibuster was an accident, an omission in the Senate rules. The notion of it being this brilliant tool of compromise was an ex post rationalization by politicians who wanted to obstruct something relevant to them in the moment. The filibuster is, and has always been, anti democratic.
The most insidious effect of the filibuster is that it distorts the feedback loop between elections and policy outcomes. For voters to make even just halfway decent decisions, they need to be able to observe the effects of their choices. If delays are too long, or political decisions don't result in material changes, this becomes impossible for all but the most plugged in.
Throughout the 20th century, every major world democracy adjusted its institutions in line with evolving democratic norms. They expanded the franchise, reformed indirect electoral systems, and with the sole exception of the United States, those with bicameral systems reduced the authority of their upper chambers. Upper legislative chambers are mostly vestiges of noble rule, a compromise on the road to real democracy that enabled upper classes to keep a hand on the wheel. The Nordic countries even eliminated their upper houses entirely in the early 20th century!
But thanks to the filibuster, and then cloture, our Senate became more and more powerful. Cloture made obstruction easier, not harder. Not due to any act of an intelligent governmental designer, but entirely due to changes made in the heat of a specific policy debate. Because that is how institutions are formed-- based on expedience. If we don't abolish the filibuster, we should at least abolish cloture and if senators really want to stop Senate business, they can stand on their feet and do it the old fashioned way.
It is long past time that CNN should have cut Scott Jennings loose. He is a smirking, disingenuous whiner. Does not offer reasoned conservative POV, but simply a sycophantic party line.
We used to have a filibuster of sorts in the Texas Senate, and that chamber could generally be counted on to moderate bad ole bills coming from the Texas House. Then Light Gov zealot Dan Patrick eliminated it, and we now have egregious, sectarian abortion laws, nonsensical redistricting, bathroom bills, and various culture wars rules masquerading as legislation. Be careful what you wish for.
"The jalopy that is Congress is struggling laboriously down the highway, fighting the brake, smoke puffing ominously from under the hood—and here comes Trump, saying, 'Come on, baby, you ever been on a motorcycle?'”
My usual reminder of what we all know but omit in the interest of "shortcut" explanations: It's not just Trump who says that, but countless co-conspirators who do everything from strategic planning to finding sound bites that sell to the "base," to the grunt work. And they already outnumber all the Senators of both parties.
I’ll split the difference—we keep the filibuster, but go back to the old “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” rules.
Can we please stop making a point of saying “Trump is right about _____”? …as though Trump, in a moment of original thinking came up with whatever idea he lucks into not being wrong about?
Trump could spew completely random thoughts and he’d be right far more often than he already is. Almost no politician is wrong at a higher clip than Trump. Yes, some of the almost entirely wrong diarrhea that dribbles from his mouth accidentally fails to be horribly, ridiculously, malevolently wrong. Must we give him credit for “being right” when this accident happens?
If I ask a toddler 20 basic questions about politics, he or she will not give 20 dreadfully wrong answers. The toddler will be “right” some portion of the time. Maybe even better than half the time, if the questions are yes/no, should we/shouldn’t we type questions!
But we wouldn’t say, “y’know, the toddler has a point about XYZ!” Because…because it’s a toddler, and we don’t seek political wisdom from toddlers.
Trump is wrong much more than a toddler. Don’t say he’s right about things. Maybe the filibuster should end, but Trump isn’t “right” about that. He just accidentally agrees with what OTHER people are right about.
Bill K: I wonder if you ever felt Bulwark would go so far beyond its initial idea of defending the old conservative ideals from ruination by the MAGA crazies in general and DT in particular?
I was any early subscriber because I thought this was a very necessary role that was hard to find elsewhere.
Now, however, it seems that Bulwark subscribers share only one goal with me, that being getting rid of Trumpism and saving our democracy. Obviously that needs to be goal number one.
But what are Bulwark’s other goals? How about supporting moderate ideas and candidates of either party? How about arguing for eliminating
partisan redistricting? Maximizing the number of purple districts? I could go on, but you get my point.
The eventual elimination of anti democratic politics is the long term goal, imo. Just getting rid of Trumpism is only the starting point. And ending the Filibuster is a terrible idea unless the “fars” in both parties have been mostly eliminated by proper districting.
I am no fan of the new "abundance for my donor patrons" Ezra Klein. I mean ... who can say if it's a genocide? JUST DON'T CALL IT RACISM!
https://parrhizzia1.substack.com/p/ezra-klein-says-israel-is-apartheid?r=3hh94p
But ... old Klein argued against the Senate filibuster by saying that it prevents American democracy from killing "zombie ideas".
https://www.pbs.org/video/nyts-ezra-klein-filibuster-disaster-tpdjfp/
In short - the filibuster makes it too hard to pass legislation, since it requires 60 votes to move most bills forward. This gridlock means that many laws and policies—both good and bad—never get fully tested by being enacted or repealed.
Without legislative turnover, failed or outdated ideas can’t be clearly proven wrong through experience. They linger in political debate as “zombie ideas”—policies that should be dead because they don’t work, but survive because they’re never tried and discredited in practice.
Majoritarian policymaking allows learning through trial and error. If a party wins power, passes its agenda, and that agenda fails, voters can hold it accountable and elect the other party to reverse course. This dynamic helps a democracy learn what works. The filibuster disrupts that process by blocking experimentation and accountability.
Result: Instead of democratic iteration, we get stalemate and blame-shifting. No party can fully implement its vision, and voters can’t see which ideas succeed or fail.
In short, Klein argues that the filibuster keeps American politics stuck, arguing over "zombie ideas" that never die because the system never lets them live or die through actual governance.
I agree with this argument.
Dammit.
This former conservative thinks that the real problem is that the Senate has evolved/devolved into a grotesquely anti-democratic (small d!) body. It might have made sense in 1787 to have two senators per state as a means of getting buy-in to the Constitution. Also, at that time, the "states" were tiny little, provincial backwaters with no more than 750k people (Virginia), including persons otherwise treated as 3/5ths persons, albeit with no representation. But today, when CA, with 40 million people, and WY, with less than 600k, both get two senators, something is seriously awry. That's about a 67:1 disparity in representation. It's frankly unsustainable. And it means that 39 million or so people in CA, as an example, are being taxed without representation.
Yes, it will take a constitutional amendment to adjust senatorial representation to a sustainable level. The Republic may blow apart. But the structure definitely needs *serious* revision if it is to survive. It was *never intended* to persist for 250 years. Ask the ghost of Thomas Jefferson, for example.
Eliminating the filibuster under such grossly un-democratic circumstances would merely compound the problem. At least, now, the grossly underrepresented states can band together to stop all of the tiny, economically almost insignificant states, from imposing their will. And, of course, the tiny, almost economically insignificant states can band together to thwart the will of the vast majority. At least that arrangement results in stasis, gridlock, or whatever you want to call it.
Bad idea.
Agreed. Republicans effectively have a floor of 48 safe seats. This situation is unjust and indefensible.
well what we really need is a "vote of no supply" which is what we have now in our congress (a govt hamstrung/unable to determine spending is... well not much of a govt) which would then go to a snap election... just imagine the fun. so the filibuster would then be -- in "balance"... that is bounded by a natural check on those employing it to well face or be willing to face an election on their dearly held belief that led them to such an extreme act in office. and anyway something like that...
I know Andrew said "maybe" but when was a time when Congress was getting too muscular with its lawmaking was a real political concern. I suspect he means the New Deal years.
Is everyone now practicing The Efficient Breach? I vaguely remember this from Contracts class. I think it came out of U.Chi. law school, the law and economics movement, and goes something like this: If the total cost of not holding up your end of a contract, including monetary penalties, fees, lost business, etc., is less than the cost of adhering to it, then you should breach it.
Trump changes his mind because he can, "thanks SCOTUS." But Big Law owes it to their clients to get out of their "deals" with him.
For everybody who wants a different view of Cheney’s impact and role, Fred Kaplan did a solid job of it on Slate.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/11/dick-cheney-death-iraq-george-w-bush-vice-president-legacy.html
Thanks for the link. That is a great piece.