OPINION:
Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican, and I were enjoying dinner at Washington’s Jefferson Hotel the evening Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, “nuked” the filibuster.
It was November 2013, and Mr. Alexander kept stepping away from the table to take calls from his colleagues. He returned after one last call to say the long-threatened battle in the Senate over weakening the filibuster for judicial nominees was finally over.
Reid, who had been crucial to saving the practice in 2005 when Republicans threatened to do away with it, had switched sides in the interim for short-term partisan benefit, and Mr. Alexander, an institutionalist at heart, was appalled.
From the time the first session of the new Senate met in 1789, the filibuster has been a weapon a minority of the body could use to talk a bill to death and has become, in the eyes of many, the ultimate defense of minority rights within the body. “Cloture,” the rule allowing a supermajority of senators to halt a filibuster and move on to a vote on whatever was being talked to death, was formalized in 1917 at the insistence of President Woodrow Wilson when the Senate allowed two-thirds to cut off debate and modified in 1955 to allow three-fifths of the senate to do so.
Mr. Alexander said he had argued long and hard to convince Reid and other Democrats that they should be wary of changing long-standing rules designed to protect the Senate minority and encourage senators who wanted to move their agendas forward to reach across the aisle for bipartisan support. But he failed.
Finally, in frustration, Mr. Alexander said he told Reid, “Go ahead then, but I assure you that when Republicans win back, the majority won’t believe what will happen.” Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky similarly warned Reid and Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, “You will regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.”
The Democrats barreled ahead, losing their Senate majority the next fall, and Mr. McConnell extended the exemption from the filibuster to Supreme Court nominees and other federal judges. The Democratic minority watched in horror as three new conservative justices were nominated by a Republican president and confirmed by a simple Senate majority under the new rule.
Once the Democrats regained control, they began pushing once again, this time to end the legislative filibuster, if not for every bill that might come before them, at least for their preferred voting rights and abortion proposals. Had the 2024 elections gone their way, Democrats would have prevailed.
But they didn’t, and in the face of a Republican majority, Mr. Schumer has morphed into a born-again defender of the filibuster, Senate tradition and minority rights.
It’s amusing. Not to be outdone, some Republicans have switched sides as well, arguing for an end to the legislative filibuster so they can “efficiently” pass legislation implementing their campaign promises and agenda without worrying about bipartisanship by running over their opponents in the way that Mr. Schumer and his crowd dreamed of doing when they were in charge.
They, like Reid, should be careful of what they wish for because such changes often backfire and erode the rights of all Senators. Such changes fundamentally alter the nature of the Senate as envisioned by the founders.
Still, politicians of both parties tend to believe short-term ends justify the means and are willing to look like hypocrites in the process. President-elect Donald Trump’s allies act as if they believe achieving his short-term goals justifies running over his opponents in the way President Biden’s minions tried to run over them when they were in the majority.
Actually, it was the Republicans who, when they controlled the Senate in 2005, came up with what came to be known as the “nuclear option.” The Republicans came up with the idea because they were frustrated by their inability to move some of George W. Bush’s judicial nominees. Still, it wasn’t until Reid adopted the idea that his party retook control that it was exercised.
It was a bad idea then, and it’s a bad idea now. The Senate should require actual filibusters rather than the virtual filibuster allowed since the 1970s. The virtual filibuster allows a supermajority vote without requiring senators to stand up and argue their case. Today’s filibuster is overused, but abolishing it altogether is unwise.
Winners enjoy running over losers, but the founders of the American republic designed the Senate as a forum that cannot easily be stampeded. Its slow deliberation and cooling-off is designed to temper the sometimes hot-headed, more populist House of Representatives.
Mr. Trump’s agenda and his nominees may have a higher hill to climb with it, but previous presidents have managed. And so will they — without having to undermine the nature of the Senate as radical progressives have wanted to do for too long.
• David Keene is editor-at-large at The Washington Times.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.