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)
.jpg)