Over at _The Atlantic_, Rob Goodman and Jimmy Soni have posted “How the Filibuster Wrecked the Roman Senate–and Could Wreck Ours”:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/03/how-the-filibuster-wrecked-the-roman-senate-and-could-wreck-ours/72776/ which recounts the filibustering by Cato the Younger in the final years of the Roman Republic (Douglas Dion also mentions Cato in “Turning the Legislative Thumbscrew”:http://www.amazon.com/Turning-Legislative-Thumbscrew-Minority-Procedural/dp/0472088262/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301026038&sr=1-1). I won’t get into their account of Roman history, except to plug my favorite podcast, “The History of Rome”:http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/, for broader context, e.g. vast economic inequality and the rise of professional armies dependent on their generals for their pay and retirement.
Goodman and Soni suggest that Cato’s obstruction is evidence for two broader claims: 1) a chamber paralyzed by obstruction may find itself bypassed as presidents and courts fill the vacuum left by legislative inaction 2) a legislature paralyzed by obstruction may be instrumental in the collapse of a republic. In both cases I can see their point, but it is not clear that eliminating the filibuster would ensure the restoration of the Senate or the republic. The challenge is that we are comparing the actual Congress to an imaginary (i.e. counterfactual) Congress without a Senate filibuster. Would things really be radically different? It’s hard to know since we can’t observe both [filibuster Senate] and [no-filibuster Senate] at the same time…
…or can we? Actually, the real world Senate allows exceptions to the 60-vote cloture threshold for some high priority issues. If Congressional action on those simple-majority issues is more responsible and timely than action on other issues, then we can deduce that Senate obstruction is the sole or primary cause of Congressional abdication. Since I have not written (and have not seen) a comprehensive study making this comparison, I focus on two easy cases.
1) U.S. armed conflict in/over Libya. Members of Congress have “complained loudly”:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51893.html about the Obama administration’s lack of consultation prior to military action in Libya and expressed concerns about the mission. There are easy remedies to these concerns; the War Powers Act sets up strict time limits to ensure that a resolution to disapprove of U.S. involvement a military action is not bottled up in committee or tied up on the House or Senate floor; a simple majority can work its will with ease. If it wants to.
OR, the Congress can attach a restrictive rider to its annual appropriations bills to prevent the use of federal funds for military action in Libya. Conveniently, Congress has not passed its appropriations bills for fiscal year 2011 even though they are now _six months_ late, so some sort of action is necessary by April 8. While appropriations bills (or continuing resolutions to keep the government running temporarily) can be filibustered, that does not mean that Congress is incapable of agreeing on a rider limiting operations in Libya in defense of Congressional prerogatives; after all, the War Powers Act itself was passed over a Presidential veto.
2) The Budget. If one listens to politicians talk (and I do) there seems to be an overwhelming consensus that the current federal deficit and long term fiscal outlook are Serious Problems. We need Adult Conversations and Major Changes to ensure that people and institutions with lots of money continue to lend it to us, but maybe not as much as in the past. And, luckily, there is a general consensus on what needs to be done: limit entitlement spending on senior citizens (where over 40% of the budget currently goes) and overhaul the tax code. Both these things can be done during divided party control; in fact, perhaps it is better to do then when both parties can take credit and share blame.
And, great news: legislation to reshape the federal budget cannot be filibustered, except for proposals to limit Social Security. Surely, if the primary impediment to responsible policy-making was the Senate filibuster, we would see Congress rushing to take on a Serious Problem with the promise that no filibuster will prevent them from making sound public policy.
Have we observed this rush to act? Well, for three months the House, Senate, and President have haggled over the appropriations bills that should have been passed last September. Even if every proposed cut is enacted (including defunding NPR!), it will have little effect on the overall deficit or long term outlook. And the Adult Conversation over the budget? Well, so far it has led to 64 senators (note: 64>60>50) “calling for the President to exercise leadership on the issue”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-gang-of-64s-odd-letter-to-president-obama/2011/03/10/ABrr8o5_blog.html, but no budget resolution or concrete proposals.
Now, I think there is a “good case”:http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeHearings&ContentRecord_id=2208a4dd-5e20-48bd-8f82-b2f75d0cd21d&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=1983a2a8-4fc3-4062-a50e-7997351c154b to be made for making it more difficult to obstruct in the U.S. Senate. But, it is hard to blame Senate obstruction for all of Congress’s inability to perform its basic tasks (e.g. nominations and appropriations) or solve major problems. Even when the Congress has the ability to act without the threat of obstruction, its members appear unwilling to do so.