Pennsylvania’s senior US Senator, John Fetterman (D), recently took to the pages of WaPo to provide a defense of the filibuster: John Fetterman: Now I see the truth about the filibuster. The sub-title is as follows: “The 60-vote Senate rule forces compromise. Democrats were wrong to attack it.”
This is apparently an ongoing sub-genre on WaPo‘s editorial page, as Joe Machin and Kyrsten Sinema had similar entries, which James Joyner wrote about at the time, here and here.
From the top, let me note that, no, the filibuster does not force compromise, even if that is the most enduring myth about the practice. More on that in a bit.
I am on record in opposition to the filibuster because it is simply a minority veto in a system that already empowers a minority of the population, in a system that is already skewed towards inaction and the empowerment of the numeric minority. It also damages the democratic feedback loop because even if your party wins a governing trifecta, it is not allowed to actually govern, meaning voters get frustrated with government and often don’t know who to hold accountable (or even hold the wrong party accountable).
Part of my ouvre on the subject can be found here:
A reminder: the filibuster is not, contrary to popular conception, about people talking on the floor until they pass out. It is, rather, as the sub-title notes, basically a parliamentary structure in the US Senate that makes it impossible to move forward to a final vote on legislation without having 60 votes in favor.
To be clear: it is not about having enough votes to pass (i.e., 51), it is about having enough votes to be allowed to block the actual vote itself.
Ok, so what does Fetterman say about it, and what evidence does he bring?
Halfway through my first term, I now recognize how important the filibuster is and the state our country would be in without it.
[…]
Upon reflection, the pursuit of those short-term wins clouded the bigger picture and lasting impact of a Senate without the filibuster — a Senate that ignored the voices of the minority and everyday people.
But, of course, the filibuster empowers the numerical minority of Senators to thwart what the majority of Senators want to do (and were ostensibly elected to do). Such outcomes are more likely than not to, in fact, ignore the voices of “everyday people.”
Speaking of Mancin and Sinema, Fetterman brings them up.
History has vindicated former senators Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona) and Joe Manchin III (West Virginia), two people who were vilified by the Democratic Party for their support of the filibuster and whose courageous efforts damaged their political careers.
I am utterly unclear on how history has vindicated either of them.
And, of course, Mancin was already eyeing the exit when he opposed filibuster reform during the Biden administration. Likewise, Sinema clearly had other plans regardless of the criticisms she received over the filibuster. As such, what damage was done?
Fetterman has a point here, insofar as he is noting that the filibuster is, as I have noted, a minority veto.
The rule is a critical line of defense that prevents President Donald Trump from having a fill-in-the-blank government with new laws, deregulation or procedures of its choosing.
First, I would note that Trump has been doing an awfully good job of doing what he wants, regardless of the Democrats’ ability to use the filibuster in the Senate.
Second, even as much as I oppose most of what Trump might try to get through the Senate, at this point, I don’t think that the Democrats saving him from further showing everyone who he is is necessarily in our long-term interests. Let the voters see, in full. And let them see the GOP going along for the ride.
Third, we are about to move into his assertion that the filibuster promotes cooperation and bipartisanship. I would note that nothing stops the Democrats from trying to engage in bipartisanship over things like the SAVE Act with a normal 51-vote margin. Force Collins, Murkowski, etc. to make their choices instead of being allowed to hide behind the filibuster.
Speaking of ye olde compromise,
Even with the filibuster intact, Biden and Senate Democrats delivered huge wins for working families. Several of those successes — like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and legislation to help veterans exposed to toxins in Iraq and Afghanistan — were the result of bipartisanship and compromise. Senate Democrats could not have passed these important pieces of legislation along party lines and had to work across the aisle. We find ourselves in the same situation now with the power dynamic flipped.
[…]
Some of my colleagues, including myself, have been frustrated when engaging with the minority. We have a great democracy that is imperfect, but it requires working together. If we don’t do that willingly, the filibuster will force us to. But that process isn’t a bug — it’s one of the best features of the Senate. That’s the way it should be.
Emphasis mine.
Can we start with the fact that the two bills in question passed during the first two years of the Biden administration during the 117th Congress (2021-2023). During those years, the Democrats had a 222-212 majority in the House and a tied Senate (with VP Harris as tiebreaker).
That means that, absent the filibuster, the Democrats could have passed the legislation in question without Republican help.
Indeed, the PACT Act was briefly blocked in the Senate because of (you guessed it!) the 60-vote threshold. It was a maneuver about an entirely different matter (see here for more details).
Ultimately, the PACT Act was a widely popular bill, and there is no evidence that the filibuster caused (or even helped) this particular bout of cooperation.
Likewise, while the IIJA bill involved some cross-party negotiations, due to the need to address the economic fallout of the pandemic, it wasn’t the filibuster that forced the two parties to get along.
Indeed, I return to A Question for the Filibuster and its fans: please give me a positive example of the filibuster forcing a compromise over a bill that otherwise would not have passed.
While there are plenty of examples of the filibuster blocking things, I am hard-pressed to find an example of how it led to bipartisan cooperation.
This is really Fetterman’s strongest argument, such as it is.
We’d have the Save America Act by now, which I do not support. We could have extreme policies such as nationwide abortion restrictions, backpedaling on LGBT rights, repeal of birthright citizenship and limited voting rights across the country. With a government trifecta firmly in place, many provisions of Project 2025 would have easily been enacted. Republicans could fundamentally change the entire government and country with a simple majority vote.
Again, a lot of Project 2025 has been implemented without involving Congress (and in some cases, by ignoring it). And again, I am actually in favor of forcing members of Congress to go on record on these matters by having to vote for this stuff.
The one thing that has stopped many unpopular policies since the beginning of 2025 isn’t the Democrats — it is the filibuster.
Indeed, it allows the minority party a veto.
With the midterms approaching, Democrats could take back control of Congress. If we win the Senate, we will not have enough votes to override the 60-vote threshold on our own and will once again have to find common ground with our Republican colleagues, assuming the Democratic Party’s narrative on the filibuster remains what it has become under Trump: that we love it. We will need to abandon our worst impulses as a party and work together to find solutions to the problems Americans face.
Again, is this happening now with the filibuster intact?
And sure, it is the case that the filibuster has allowed the Democrats to block certain impulses of the Republicans. But if the tables are turned in the next Congress, then the Republicans can block the Democrats from trying to rein in the White House. Worse, if the Democrats win a governing trifecta in the 2028 elections, their ability to fix all of this mess will be hampered by (say it with me) the filibuster.
Note: None of this fully addresses the structural problems of representation in the Senate, which is its own topic.
