Pirates of the Potomac
By Alice Paulse and Madré Swart
A little reminder: a Filibuster is an attempt to delay or completely prevent a vote from taking place in a legislative assembly - usually by the prolonging of a speech.
We tackled this tactic in our first issue of GAS POLITICS but it seems that American politicians have a long-standing affair with ‘filibusting’… or maybe they just love talking out of their asses. However, the tactic is definitely not a new toy: it has been used since the 1850s. The name stems from a Dutch term for ‘pirate’ - and a more appropriate name couldn’t exist as a pirate’s job is to hi-jack ships and politicians use the filibuster to hi-jack the U.S. Senate floor.
These days, the role of ‘pirate’ is played by the Republican Party and the captives, who are forced to listen to their babbling, are the unfortunate Democrats. This tactic gives the minority party a good weapon to have in its arsenal. In the ‘good ol’ days’ of Congress, Representatives and Senators could filibuster but, as the number of the House of Representatives grew, debate was limited as revisions to the House Rules were made. In 1917, Senators adopted a rule known as ‘Rule 22’, which allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote - which is known as ‘cloture’. They did not realise that a two-thirds majority vote would be difficult to obtain as the Southern Senators sought to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964 until cloture was invoked after a 57-day filibuster. As a result, the Senate in 1975 reduced the number of votes needed to three-fifths, or sixty of the hundred senators. Damn, those Southerners love talking out of their asses!
The award for the ‘most successful filibuster’ goes to: (drum roll please…) South Carolina’s Senator Strom Thurmond. Thurmond came prepared to talk out of his ass by taking steam baths to ensure that his bladder stayed under wraps, getting lots of rest and eating a sirloin steak. At 8:54 pm on August 28th 1957, he started his 24-hour and 18-minute-long filibuster to prevent the vote on the Civil Rights Bill. Thurmond played it safe as the senator performing the filibuster cannot leave the floor: he had an intern on standby with a bucket - just in case his bladder decided to go for a walk. It was the longest that anyone had ever talked about anything in Congress.
The ‘master’ of the filibuster: Huey Long took to the Senate floor in 1935. Long loved the sound of his own voice so much that he read Shakespeare and even recipes. He spoke for 15.5 hours and, after a fair amount of time, realised that most of the room had dozed off. He definitely had a ‘thing’ for fried oysters and potlucks. He wasn’t as prepared as Thurmond when it came to the bladder department and he made a dash when Mother Nature called.
Most ‘determined’ filibuster: Senator Alfonse D’Amato in 1992. It seems like D’Amato could not get enough of the ‘Senate Stage’ as he filibustered more than once. However, the most memorable one occurred in 1992 when he gave a ‘lovely’ rendition of ‘South of the Border (Down Mexico Way)’, which formed part of his ‘talkathon’ to stop about 800 jobs being moved from New York to Mexico.
The Danger-Zone filibuster: Wisconsin Senator Robert La Folette is known for his almost ‘fatal’ filibuster. He nearly incited a riot in 1908… and of course he would, as his nickname was ‘Fighting Bob’. He filibustered in order to stop legislation that would arm ships against the Germans. Instead, the Senate members armed themselves as La Folette came close to throwing a brass spittoon.
Senator Ollie James was packing heat, Sen. Harry Lane smuggled a steel file into the Senate chamber and decided that he would stab James if necessary. However, La Folette never learnt his lesson as, in 1917, he occupied the Senate floor once more and had an almost fatal experience. Things went south when La Folette felt the need for a turkey sandwich and a glass of milk mixed with raw eggs for strength.
It could have been a mistake or maybe the kitchen staff was rather pissed at having to stay late, but La Folette took a big gulp and realised that it tasted a bit ‘off’… but it was too late as he had already broken out in cold sweat. Tests done on the mixture proved that it was extremely toxic and anyone who drank the entire glass would’ve died.
Interesting Fact: The number of bills that have been blocked by Republicans in the Senate is a staggering 375… while Lyndon B. Johnson faced one!
The Republican Party might never share in the Democratic Party’s belief in ‘Big Government’, so the filibuster is a more powerful and popular tool for the GOP. This method to block or delay action by Democrats has become more frequent in use, especially since President Obama took office, but who truly benefits from this tiresome process?
The obvious answer is of course the minority Republican Party, as their ability to filibuster legislation gives them an advantage over the Democrats. Super-majority rules make it hard to execute legislation, which in turn makes it hard for the government to act. This sits all too well with the Republicans, who want nothing more than a passive government… to ‘shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub’, according to powerful lobbyist Grover Norquist.
The only official procedure that can stop or ‘break’ the filibuster is Rule 22 – the cloture rule. In simple terms, the cloture vote is a stand-off between the ‘filibustering minority’ and a dismayed ‘annoyed majority’. If the Senate can muster 60 votes to say ‘Yes’, the filibuster ends. This rarely happens and many attempts in the past by the Senate resulted in failure, thus leaving the filibuster’s effectiveness intact.
The only official procedure that can stop or ‘break’ the filibuster is Rule 22 – the cloture rule. In simple terms, the cloture vote is a stand-off between the ‘filibustering minority’ and a dismayed ‘annoyed majority’. If the Senate can muster 60 votes to say ‘Yes’, the filibuster ends. This rarely happens and many attempts in the past by the Senate resulted in failure, thus leaving the filibuster’s effectiveness intact.
The recently changed rule opened a new playing field – a super-majority vote is no longer required to close a debate. This is known as the ‘nuclear option’. The ruling change was brought on by the Republicans’ continued opposition against Obama… now more than ever with his nominees for the three positions on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. It had gotten out of hand: an abuse of the principle of the filibuster that it should be used for exceptional cases and not willy-nilly for any disagreements. And there is no shortage of disagreements between the Republicans and Democrats.
In reaction to the change of the filibuster rule, the Republicans warned the Democrats that they will regret their decision because someday they’ll hold the minority position. If this treasured Senate tradition is completely abolished, it would secure long-term gains for the Democratic Party but, for now, this measure suffices as a short-term advantage.
Obama will be able to appoint or replace people within the bounds of his administration for at least the next year.
The change of the filibuster rule, which was so easily opposed by many, may be just what the Senate needs right now. What has been referred to as ‘the world’s greatest deliberative body’ has been degraded and weakened by a ‘destructive dynamic’. This rule-changing could help strengthen the Senate and give both parties sufficient opportunities to achieve up or down votes.
The question might surface: why filibuster to begin with? Why speak for 13 hours and pee in a bucket behind a curtain so that at least one foot stays on the Senate floor? As mentioned previously, the filibuster’s main function is to delay a vote. It has been called ‘unconstitutional’, ‘unfair’ and a ‘historical relic’. Filibusters bring light to the issue at hand and some are intended to prompt compromise. However, in most cases the issue is lost along the way. How could it not if the senator ‘filibusting’ starts reciting Shakespeare, does Darth Vader impressions, talks about ‘potlikkers’ or takes an in-depth look at celebrities’ relationships? In many cases, the initial vote still takes place without any change, resulting in the filibuster being merely a waste of time. But sometimes even the threat of a filibuster is enough.
Given the ever-changing rules of the Senate, the future of ‘filibusting’ is undecided. Perhaps someday it will fall away completely, but that seems unlikely. It takes a two-thirds majority to change the rules of the Senate and why would members of the minority vote give up one of their most powerful weapons? Or deprive the Senate of one of its theatrical elements?
The vacant positions on the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia have been filled and Republicans are still bitching about it, but now (instead of wasting everyone’s time with their useless ‘filibusting’), they have to sit fat-lipped. There’s always the possibility of abusing the new rule as well as Democrats become the minority.
The full effect of the ‘nuclear’ blast will be felt after the mid-terms in November.