I Like the Filibuster - Mostly

There is a lot of grumbling over the use of filibusters in the Senate this term from frustrated Democrats. While I hate the hyper-partisan atmosphere, I can't get myself too worked up over the filibuster. (New York Review of Books has a good - and one-sided - article on the filibuster which I found unconvincing.)

The Democrats had an extremely ambitious agenda after eight years of Bush and they were definitely seeking to move much or all of it through in two years. Here is a list of the major legislation they were seeking:

- Health care expansion
- Financial services reform
- Climate change
- Immigration reform

You'll note that I did not include tax reform or education - the former because I don't find it that significant since it seems to change with every administration and the later because Obama's reforms are not so liberal.

Since the four I listed are pretty significant changes, I am not upset that we were denied progress on two of these four even though I support all four. I think Democrats were a bit too ambitious and voters seem to be hitting the brakes. Without the filibuster, Democrats might have made even more progress and engendered even more of a negative reaction.

One possible counter argument that I can imagine is that if the Senate were not dominated by minority power, we wouldn't need to wait so long for any change. As it is now, when there is an opportunity for change, we are not satisfied with incremental change because we doubt we'll be able to get further increments in the future. So instead we go big, which creates serious minority party opposition.

While i think this is possible, I think it is more likely that without the check in the Senate, the party in power would seek major changes and appeal to their base. My fear in that case then is with whipsaw policies - going back and forth as the winds change. Imagine privatizing social security one year, then reversing it the next. Or enacting health care reforms only to see them repealed. While we have some of this now (taxes and benefits for the poor certainly wax and wane) I worry about this for bigger policies.

The one place I think the filibuster should be curtailed is on presidential appointments below the level of cabinet or Supreme Court. I think Republicans have stalled on Obama's appointments in a way that is shameful - although I am hearing that Obama also hasn't been very forceful or even attentive on this matter. These appointments have little impact when approved but major impact when they are all stalled. Filibuster ability is unnecessary in those cases.

Beyond that one reform though, I like the role of the Senate as more deliberate and slowing change. I think it works both ways, preventing ill-considered Republican and Democrat changes. I am confident that progress happens over time and that in time, 60 Senators do agree to move ahead.

In fact, I think that in a time with slightly less partisanship, we could have balanced immigration reform and incremental climate change action. If we see that time, we might forget all about the filibuster. The question is, when will we ever move beyond the insane hyper-partisanship.