Many thoughtful observers have considered the current state of the U.S. Senate and concluded that it is an increasingly inefficient body in which getting anything done is nearly impossible.
That slothful state is not due exclusively to the existence of, and abuse of, the tradition of the filibuster. Limiting the use of the filibuster (if not completely eliminating it, which is probably a step too far), however, could go a long way to making the Senate functional again.
"Filibuster Reform At Last," by Katrina vanden Heuvel, outlines a proposal that could move us in that direction. Without sacrificing the filibuster as a tool, it might be possible, as she puts it, to "prevent a single senator from wielding the filibuster against the entire body and would allow the majority to challenge the minority without wasting precious floor time."
Such a plan would be of benefit to both parties whenever they are in majority status. Vanden Heuvel's article unfortunately treats the issue as one that would benefit liberal causes, mainly (apparently) because she suggests that Democrats still have the requisite votes to be able to approve these changes, which on January 5, the opening day of the new Congress, would not require a 2/3 vote but only a majority. The author claims that there is strong support for such a move, the best chance for Senate reform "in a generation." I hope she is right; I fear she is not.
Comments