Do you believe in majority rule? That is, should a 51% (or even 50.1%) affirmative vote decide who wins an election or what decisions pass a legislative body? That’s how we usually expect democracy to work. But 41 Senators can keep Senate bills from passing. Is that right?
Protection from the Tyranny of the Majority?
As the “filibuster rule” now stands, 41
Senators can keep most Senate bills from coming to a vote. That is, it takes 60
Senators to vote cloture of a filibuster, and without that “super-majority”
vote, the bill under question is not voted on.
The main argument in favor of the present
system is that it protects the minority from the “tyranny” of the majority, which
now, by the slimmest of margins, are Democrats.
Ross K. Baker, a distinguished professor of
political science at Rutgers University, wrote an opinion
piece published last week in USA Today. His point was that “it is
not a good idea to get rid of the filibuster and thus enfeeble minorities and
empower very slim majorities.”
Even when the bellicose language of “tyranny”
is not used, the filibuster rule is seen by some, such as Sen. Joe Manchin
(D-W.Va.), as a way to encourage bipartisanship and cooperation in passing
bills for the greater good of the country.
That may well have been largely true when
Manchin (b. 1947) was a young man. But most probably it is, sadly, not effective
now at this time of toxic polarity.
The views of the minority should, certainly,
be listened to carefully and taken seriously. But should the minority have the
power to determine what bills are voted on?
Protection from the Tyranny of the Minority?
As most of you readers know, I lived in Japan
for 38 years and was a regular participant in university faculty meetings and
in church business meetings.
Japanese culture places great emphasis on wa
(group harmony). Thus, decisions were, ideally, made by consensus rather than
by a vote—or by a vote after consensus had largely been reached.
Even in meetings of more than 100 faculty
members, strong opposition from just a few vocal opponents of some motion on
the floor could lead to postponing a decision or even withdrawing the motion.
One of my closest faculty colleagues
complained more than once about such situations. That, perhaps, is when I first
heard the term, “the tyranny of the minority.”
With the recalcitrance of the current 50
Republican U.S. Senators, it seems as though the U.S. Senate can often be aptly
charged with being “guilty” of the tyranny of the minority.
What Can/Should Be Done?
The U.S.
House this year passed, by the narrowest of margins but by a majority vote, the
For the People Act (H.R. 1), which
“addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and
ethics for the three branches of government.”
Currently, unless the filibuster rule is
changed, that bill is likely not to come to a Senate vote. The minority Party
will kill the bill.
As it stands now, the same is true for the Equality Act
(H.R. 5), the bill that “prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual
orientation, and gender identity . . . .”
Both of those bills not only procured the
majority vote in the House, but public opinion polls also indicate that a
majority of the adults in the U.S. agree with the provisions of those bills.
Those who advocate doing away with the
filibuster have a strong case. But those who think the filibuster should be
preserved, have arguments that must not be taken lightly. Something between all
or nothing is called for.
In considering the matter of equality for all
and protecting voting rights, though, surely the tyranny of the minority should
not be seen as an acceptable course of action.
For the good of the country, the Senate must
soon find a suitable position between the tyranny of the majority and the
tyranny of the minority.
_____
In addition to Baker’s article linked to above, here
are some of the opinion pieces I found to be instructive. (Some of these may be
behind a paywall for non-subscribers.)
**
Ruth Marcus, “Kill the filibuster — and reap
what you sow”
(The Washington Post, March 19)
**
Zack Beauchamp, “The filibuster’s racist history,
explained”
(Vox, March 25)
**
Jennifer Rubin, “Republicans’ big lie about the
filibuster”
(The Washington Post, March 25)
**
John Fea, “The longest filibusters in U.S.
history were launched to stop the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964” (Current, March
28)
After posting this, I saw a related opinion piece in today's Washington Post. It was by one of my favorite op/ed writers, E.J. Dionne, Jr. In today's article he says that "Minority rule gets in the way of the majority’s common sense." Here is the link to that article:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-paralyzed-democracy-cant-protect-us/2021/04/02/1a5ec0dc-93f5-11eb-a74e-1f4cf89fd948_story.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_opinions&utm_campaign=wp_opinions
Comments usually are slow coming in on a Monday morning, and this was especially true today. Here, though, are perceptive comments that came several minutes ago from Thinking Friend Virginia Belk in New Mexico:
ReplyDelete"You have stated well both poles and the muddle in between. I have long been frustrated by the Senate 60% filibuster rule. Furthermore, I think a major reason behind the fear of the 'tyranny of the minority' is based in and motivated by the problems outlined in the fourth reference listed below your statements: many of those who favor defining 'majority' as 60% are those who do not want equal/civil rights for all. Some of this opposition comes from 'red neck white trash' but much of it comes from those who wish to remain 'landed gentry/top dog/rich and famous,' many of whom truly believe they are superior."
Thanks, Virginia, for your comments. While, historically, the filibuster has most often been used to oppose civil rights legislation, I think you are correct in pointing out that the filibuster has also been used to preserve the status quo for the economic benefit of the "landed gentry/top dog/rich and famous" and their ilk. Most things are usually more complex than we tend to recognize, and simple, one-dimensional explanations are rarely adequate.
DeleteWhile writing the above response to Virginia, I received the following comments from Thinking Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your comments about the filibuster.
"Some argue that the filibuster is actually unconstitutional since there is no provision for it in the Constitution. I am not opposed to the filibuster per se, but it has become very abused. In the 1950's, about 25 percent of proposed legislation passed the Senate; now it is less than three percent (per Wikipedia). In the 1950's, a senator had to actually talk a bill to death; now all he or she has to do is notify the leadership of his or her opposition and the bill is essentially dead. To me, this has become a tyranny of the minority. If nothing ever passes, there can be no tyranny of the majority. As you point out, something needs to be done."
Thanks, Eric, for pointing out the difference in the filibuster, and the Senate, between the 1950s and now. As you correctly indicated, a filibuster used to mean exactly that rather than just the threat of a filibuster such as we have now. And that may be one reason there was such a much higher percentage of proposed legislation that passed back then. Of course, the polarity was not nearly as pronounced back then, so one of the main needs now is to overcome the "toxic polarity," as I called it, and to promote healthy bipartisanship. But, honestly, I don't know how the tide can be turned in order for that to begin to become a reality.
DeleteThe Senate is already a terribly undemocratic institution. Tiny Wyoming with a little over half a million residents has the same number of Senators as California, a state with nearly 80 times the population. Even Washington, DC, with more citizens than Wyoming, has fewer (zero) Senators than Wyoming. The 50 Republican Senators represent far fewer citizens than the Democratic Senators, even as no one represents Washington, DC. Meanwhile, thanks to gerrymandering, Democrats need to win approximately 55% of the vote every two years to have a chance to win the House. (Don't forget the Electoral College!)
ReplyDeleteSo what is a frustrated majority to do when governments fails catastrophically to work? The President can declare an emergency for many types of problems, and create a temporary fix. Sometimes, however, it is Congress that needs to handle an emergency. One way to do that is to scale back or eliminate the filibuster. Just as a Presidential emergency declaration is carefully scrutinized, so too should a cancelation of the filibuster. One issue is whether the shakey Democratic coalition could actually make good use of the end of the filibuster. If not, they should leave it alone, because the public will demand high performance in return for such a change. On the other hand, there are a number of truly important bills pending that would profoundly affect the future of the United States.
Personally, I think Trump nearly destroyed the United States, and greatly endangered the entire world. If he and his kind return to power any time soon, it will probably be the end of democracy as we knew it, and, with the gross short-sightedness and corruption Trump displayed, a disaster for America and the world. Cancelling the filibuster is like pulling Excalibur from the stone. If it slides out in your hand, and sings when you wave it, then use it for great things. If not, we may be doomed, anyway.
Thanks for your helpful comments, Craig.
DeleteThe main argument for keeping the status quo, of course, is that things might really be bad if the "other side" gets to pass legislation by a simple majority. This is the big dilemma for the Party in power now. If the voting restriction laws are allowed to stand in the many states, beginning with Georgia, enacting those laws, then the other Party could conceivably become the Party in power in 2022 and who knows for how long.
Protecting democracy, though, may well be worth taking the risk involved in making a major change in the filibuster rule.
Here are comments received earlier this morning from Thinking Friend Kevin Heifner, M.D., in Arkansas:
ReplyDelete"This is a most useful post to me, and especially some of the links to other articles and thinkers. Admittedly, I have not done my due diligence as to the specifics of this issue, which I know to be complicated, so I look forward to doing more reading and research before I am comfortable with establishing a firm commitment to one position. So thank you.
"With that said, and since I tend to formulate opinions fairly quickly which I hope are well considered but also frequently driven by my gut...I think that we are already at a lethal standstill and that the filibuster is worth sacrificing if for nothing else one key principle. That principle is to ensure that we codify as strongly impossible the concept of equal access to, promotion of, and action which will make sure no impediments exist to everyone being able to cast a legal vote.
"This is the holy grail which is at stake. If we truly ensure All citizens have this right… By my simple reckoning, we will then have elections which reflect the will of the people. When this happens, many of the inculturalized issues we battle over will simply melt away. The right knows this and they do not have any other hand to play. It is simply a numbers game, statistics... and the old arguments simply will not be enough to win elections moving forward. I think we’re at a juncture and some actions, such as nullifying the filibuster previously seen as draconian, are worth sacrificing. Until we do so, as others have pointed out we remain mired in political purgatory. As always, I could be wrong and remain open to further enlightenment."
Thanks for your comments, Kevin. I mainly agree with you, but I am uneasy about a complete change in the filibuster rule, for what can be enacted by a slight majority under one Party could, in most cases, be reversed by the other Party when or if they became the majority again -- and maybe even worse laws could be enacted out of spite.
DeleteJust after noon I received the following comments from a new Thinking Friend, Jerry Jumper from southwest Missouri.
ReplyDelete"Very thoughtful, as usual, comments re present intransigence in our Senate. I may be wrong but it seems that 'serving' in either branch of Congress, for many, is just a job to be held onto, and milked for all one can get. That then requires pandering to the most vocal and active members of one's party. Manchin is from a very red state. The only way he may keep his job is to be sufficiently Republican without switching parties."