Even if Al Franken is finally seated as the junior senator from Minnesota, Democrats in that "august body" will still number only 59. Close, but no cigar: Thanks to the Senate's maddening supermajority rule for ending filibusters, Democrats will still remain one person short of being able to do pass anything undiluted by Senate Republicans.
It may seem like an arcane procedural issue to some, which is exactly what Republicans (and Dems) would like all Americans to think. Given the fact that the filibuster is as fixed in the American political cosmos as the constitution or the first amendment.
It is not, as George Kenney's short and sweet editorial in the LA Times yesterday details. (Kenney is the host of the frequently great podcast Electric Politics.) Robert Parry, in a guest ITT column a few weeks ago, also tackled this topic.
The filibuster is not an arcane issue: it is a basic roadblock to legislative action. Given our current economic crisis, that means it may be the major obstacle to meaningful government action. The stimulus bill barely squeaked through the chamber, thanks to Maine's two senators and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Other bills are not so lucky.
Yes, the filibuster may be a Senate tradition. But given our deepening crisis, let's dispense with it to let majority party rule – recommended by a clear majority of voters last November – actually take place.
I should note though, that plenty of Democratic Senators – some with vivid memories of being in the minority after 1994's major Republican victory – oppose abolishing the filibuster. Huffington Post offers a great primer on why here. Even Bernie Sanders says he hasn't thought much about it.
Sure, Dems only need one more Senator to make this whole debate obsolete (at least until the next election). And let's hope that happens very soon. But that won't change the fact that the filibuster is inherently undemocratic, an elitist tool that should be ended. Yes, it might come in handy if/when Dems become the minority Senate party. But why shouldn't a party suffer when they can't convince a majority of Americans to support their platform and policies?
Please consider supporting our work.
I hope you found this article important. Before you leave, I want to ask you to consider supporting our work with a donation. In These Times needs readers like you to help sustain our mission. We don’t depend on—or want—corporate advertising or deep-pocketed billionaires to fund our journalism. We’re supported by you, the reader, so we can focus on covering the issues that matter most to the progressive movement without fear or compromise.
Our work isn’t hidden behind a paywall because of people like you who support our journalism. We want to keep it that way. If you value the work we do and the movements we cover, please consider donating to In These Times.
Jeremy Gantz is an In These Times contributing editor working at Time magazine.
