Yes, a ‘Talking Filibuster’ Would Be Painful — for Senate Democrats

A merica’s co-presidents, Joe Biden and Joe Manchin, made waves this month when they each endorsed the idea of changing Senate rules to require a “talking filibuster.”

“I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days” Biden told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News last week. “And that is, with a filibuster, you had to stand up and command the floor, and you had to keep talking.

“If you want to make it a little bit more painful, make him stand there and talk — I’m willing to look at any way we can,” Manchin said of the filibuster on Meet the Press earlier this month. “But I’m not willing to take away the involvement of the minority.” Manchin quickly clarified that he supports the 60-vote threshold for most legislation, and it’s not clear exactly how the Senate might structure a rules change that Manchin would support.

But the notion that a talking filibuster would be painful for the Senate minority rests on the dubious assumption that senators will grow tired of the sound of their own voices.

One has to wonder: Has Joe Manchin even met Ted Cruz?

Or Josh Hawley? Or Lindsey Graham? “I would talk till I fell over,” Graham said on Fox News last week.

Although Senate Democrats haven’t drawn up a formal proposal, most of them appear to support such a change. But it doesn’t seem like many have thought through the possibility that the change could make things more painful for them.

“Depending on how a ‘talking filibuster’ is structured, a group of senators could hold the floor for days or even weeks. Nothing could get done — no nominations or bills or treaties — since this faction would control the floor,” writes John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News. “That’s why when Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) changed the rule in 1972 so that there could be ‘silent filibusters.’ This allowed Senate business to continue while a filibuster was conducted on another track. It was considered a key reform at the time. Mansfield also changed the cloture threshold from 67 to 60 in 1975.”

In the Capitol, I’ve spoken with several Democratic senators who support changing to a talking filibuster, but not one gave a plausible explanation of how such gridlock would be avoided.

Massachusetts senator Ed Markey tells National Review that switching to a talking filibuster would be “a good start.” Asked why a talking filibuster wouldn’t result in even more gridlock, Markey expressed confidence that the bills Republicans would filibuster would have the overwhelming support of the American people. “These would not be ordinary bills. These would be bills of paramount importance to every citizen,” Markey says. “It would be the bill to ensure voting rights for all minorities. It would be the bill to make sure that we save the planet from climate change.”

But in all likelihood, a three-week debate over any of the Democrats’ top legislative priorities would not end in Republicans caving because such a debate would probably make the legislation less popular.

Ask voters if they support “strengthening voting rights” or favor an LGBT nondiscrimination law, and a poll will certainly show the bill has overwhelming support. Spend three weeks focusing on the details of H.R. 1 or the details of the Equality Act, and it’s hard to see either bill polling very well.

Democratic senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey also supports changing to a talking filibuster, but he simply waved away the possibility that it would create more gridlock for congressional Democrats.

“I think it goes back to the essence of what the filibuster originally meant,” Menendez told me. “Without that, nobody ever has to show their face behind who’s stopping the legislation.” He added that he was “sure there’s a way to fashion it” so it didn’t grind Senate business to a halt, but he didn’t spell out how that could actually be accomplished.

For Senate Democrats who oppose the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for legislation, the talking filibuster makes sense only if it is a stepping stone toward majority rule.

“We need to get rid of the 60-vote filibuster, period,” says Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren. By supporting a talking filibuster, “Senator Manchin is making clear that he knows the current filibuster system isn’t working,” Warren added. “Ultimately, we’ve got to get to a place where it doesn’t take 60 votes to get anything done around here.”

“I think momentum is building for some change,” says Democratic senator Chris Van Hollen, who favors scrapping the 60-vote rule. “But let’s just take this one step at a time. Every journey begins with a first step.”

He added that some of his Democratic colleagues may need to see “even more of a demonstration that Republicans will block and obstruct importation measures.”

In other words, the people who are supposed to feel the most pressure from a talking filibuster aren’t Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz. It’s Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (and maybe Dianne Feinstein, too). But if that the pressure fails to persuade Manchin, Sinema, and other holdouts to abandon the 60-vote rule, then their Democratic colleagues would be the ones feeling the most pain.