Senate Filibuster Is Good for Democracy

To witness the current debate over the filibuster is to watch the Senate at war with itself as an institution. As Yuval Levin explored in A Time to Build, one of the themes of American life in recent decades has been the continued neglect or even destruction of institutions, with those who hold positions of power viewing these institutions merely as platforms for their ambition rather than as distinctive entities to be preserved.

This pervasive institutional deterioration provides a grim context for the current debate about going nuclear on the legislative filibuster in the Senate. Over the past 20 years, Washington has all too often been indifferent to the demands of institutional politics, which is in part why it has faced a surge of populism at home and countless frustrations abroad. Looking at the institutional imperatives of the Senate might reveal some of the risks to political stability posed by the “nuclear option.”

FB

About the Author

Fred Bauer

Fred Bauer is a writer from New England.

Featured Tags

Manage following

Senate

Filibuster

To witness the current debate over the filibuster is to watch the Senate at war with itself as an institution. As Yuval Levin explored in A Time to Build, one of the themes of American life in recent decades has been the continued neglect or even destruction of institutions, with those who hold positions of power viewing these institutions merely as platforms for their ambition rather than as distinctive entities to be preserved.

This pervasive institutional deterioration provides a grim context for the current debate about going nuclear on the legislative filibuster in the Senate. Over the past 20 years, Washington has all too often been indifferent to the demands of institutional politics, which is in part why it has faced a surge of populism at home and countless frustrations abroad. Looking at the institutional imperatives of the Senate might reveal some of the risks to political stability posed by the “nuclear option.”