Politics or Principle

de Sarah A. Binder, Steven S. Smith · Publicada por primera vez en 1996

Is American democracy being derailed by the United States Senate filibuster? Is the filibuster an important right that improves the political process or an increasingly partisan tool that delays legislation and thwarts the will of the majority? Are century-old procedures in the Senate hampering the institution in fulfilling its role on the eve of the twenty-first century? The authors examine the evolution of the rules governing Senate debate, analyze the consequences of these rules, and evaluate reform proposals. They argue that in an era of unprecedented filibustering and related obstructionism, old habits are indeed undermining the Senate's ability to meet its responsibilities. Binder and Smith scrutinize conventional wisdom about the filibuster - and show that very little of it is true. They focus on five major myths: that unlimited debate is a fundamental right that differentiates the Senate from the House of Representatives; that the Senate's tradition as a deliberative body requires unlimited debate; that the filibuster was once reserved for a few issues of the utmost national importance; that few measures are actually killed by filibuster; and that senators resist changing the rules because of a principled commitment to deliberation. In reappraising conventional wisdom about the filibuster, Binder and Smith contribute to ongoing debates about the dynamics of institutional change in the American political system. The authors conclude by suggesting reforms intended to enhance the power of determined majorities while preserving the rights of chamber minorities. They advocate, for example, reducing the number of votes required to end debate while increasing the amount of time for senators to debate controversial bills. Reform that is consistent with the Senate's unique size and responsibilities is possible, they suggest.