The Filibuster

In the aftermath of the health care reform bill, there is a lot of talk about why the filibuster, or the mere threat of a filibuster, has become such a significant part of Senate politics in our time. I am looking forward to James Fallows' upcoming article in the Atlantic, but here is an interesting interview with a historian.

The real surge in filibuster use was in the early 1990's, apparently as a feature of partisan politics. Because we had ideologically distinct parties, the minority party realized that if it merely deprived the majority of real victories, they could be successful. The republicans not only didn't pay a price for obstruction, they ended up taking over Congress. But did we really have ideologically distinct parties and, if so, why did that happen?

The power of a mere threat of a filibuster must have something to do with other changes. The airplane made it possible for Congresspersons to travel quickly to their constituents. The increased money required to campaign, partly due to mass media, made it necessary to campaign much more of the time, which the airplane made possible. The mass media also made possible other ways of gaining power and to be a big player. It was less necessary to be on good terms with the senior members; rather, individual members could direct their efforts directly to the media.

Mass media never has stories like "things haven't changed." They always look for a win-lose angle. That is what attracts readers' attention. That addresses one of Zakaria's points about the failure of our government. I still don't understand at all the ideology part, but campaign finance reform in terms of individual contribution limits and perhaps term limits would address the first two points, and perhaps the filibuster. Because the schedules of members of Congress have become so full of fund-raising events, even the threat of a filibuster is potent. However, either of these moves would require a Constitutional amendment. Some of the other ideas floating around about curbing the power of the threatened filibuster seem more attainable. After all, the filibuster is just an outdated Senate rule and is not part of the Constitution.