There is a tremendous amount of romance associated with the filibuster. Many fans of old movies recall scenes such as those in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington where Jimmy Stewart’s character (an unlikely appointee meant to go along) takes the floor and refuses to yield it as he attempts to protect a boy’s camp from rapacious developers. The dashing and earnest young senator carries on to the point of exhaustion and finally collapses when he can no longer continue his one-man crusade. One of his tormentors, stricken by conscience, confesses the wrong he and others conspired to commit and vindicates his courageous and sincere colleague.
For the most part, filibusters are disappointing affairs compared to the one depicted so dramatically in Frank Capra’s film.
What’s the less sensationalized view of the thing? We begin by considering the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The United States government takes the ancient advice to mix the different types of regimes so as to achieve stability. Therefore, we have a president who is like a monarch, a senate like an aristocracy, and a house like a democracy. All are elected on different cycles. The president is elected every four years. The Senate only exposes 1/3 of its members every two years. They serve six-year terms. Members of the house only have two years and must face the people more often than anyone else.
It is expected that the House will respond the most to popular feeling and will reflect the mood of the voters in an extremely current way. The entire House could theoretically turn over in a single election. Our Constitution counters the potentially rash movements and feelings of the house and voters by putting in place a much more deliberate Senate. Senators were originally not even popularly elected but were chosen by state legislatures. The idea was that the House and Senate would be like a cup of coffee and a saucer. The hot coffee from the House could be poured into the saucer of the Senate to cool. Popular passion would be restrained by reason and reflection.
The filibuster, which is not found in the Constitution but is instead a Senate rule, fits with this description of the Senate as a cooling agent. With the filibuster, one senator can arrest the attention of the body and slow down the proceedings. While speaking to exhaustion, a senator might argue a case or just create more time for others to consider the merits of legislation.
Click Here to Read More (Originally Published at World Magazine)
Hunter (J.D., Ph.D.) is the provost and dean of faculty at North Greenville University in South Carolina. He is the author of The End of Secularism, Political Thought: A Student’s Guide and The System Has a Soul. His work has appeared in a wide variety of other books and journals. He is formally affiliated with the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; Touchstone, the Journal of Markets and Morality; the Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy; and the Land Center at Southwestern Seminary.