Codifying the Filibuster: Propelling America Back to the Center

Introduction

In an era of deep political polarization, the United States finds itself at a critical juncture, grappling with issues that demand nuanced and pragmatic solutions. As an observer looking at the American landscape, it is clear that the nation is in dire need of mechanisms that can bridge the gap and facilitate meaningful dialogue. One potential approach to restoring balance and fostering bipartisanship is through the codification of the filibuster, a procedural tool that can encourage moderation and compromise. By setting the filibuster threshold at 60%, political leaders would be compelled to transcend extreme tendencies and craft reasonable legislation with broad bipartisan support.

Understanding the Filibuster

The filibuster is a parliamentary procedure that allows members of a legislative body to extend the debate on a particular issue, thereby delaying or preventing a vote on the proposed legislation. The term "filibuster" itself derives from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" or "freebooter," reflecting its historical origins as a method of obstructing legislative business.

The roots of the filibuster can be traced back to the early days of the United States Congress. While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Senate, in its pursuit of ensuring robust debate, adopted rules that allowed for extended discussions on matters of importance. Over time, the filibuster evolved into a powerful tool employed by senators to express their dissent, stall legislation, or draw attention to specific issues.

In its traditional form, a filibuster involved a senator or a group of senators taking the floor and speaking at length to prevent a vote. By engaging in lengthy speeches, often on unrelated topics, filibustering senators aimed to delay or derail the legislative process. These marathon speeches, known for their physical and mental endurance, could last for hours, days, or even weeks, effectively obstructing the progress of proposed legislation.

To address the obstructive nature of the traditional filibuster, the Senate introduced the cloture rule in 1917. The cloture rule allows for the ending of a filibuster and requires a three-fifths supermajority, typically 60 out of 100 senators, to invoke it. Once invoked, the filibustering senators must yield the floor, and a vote on the legislation can proceed.

In recent years, senators have employed alternative tactics to filibuster without physically speaking for extended periods. These tactics include placing holds on nominations or bills, threatening to filibuster, or engaging in procedural delays to block or impede legislation. While these methods may not involve continuous speeches, they still serve the purpose of obstructing and delaying legislative action.

The Problem of Polarization

The United States is experiencing an unprecedented level of polarization, where every issue is filtered through the lenses of left and right, liberals and conservatives. Objective truths are often colored by political leanings, resulting in a fracturing of society. Matters such as crime, racism, equality, and others, which should be unequivocally addressed, become mired in ideological battles, hindering meaningful progress.

The Role of Filibuster in American Politics

The filibuster has been a subject of debate and controversy throughout its history. Supporters argue that it protects minority rights, fosters deliberation, and prevents hasty legislation. They contend that the filibuster serves as a safeguard against the potential tyranny of the majority and encourages compromise and consensus-building.

Critics, on the other hand, argue that the filibuster has been abused to stifle progress, perpetuate gridlock, and undermine democratic decision-making. They assert that the filibuster enables a minority of senators to wield disproportionate influence and obstruct the will of the majority, hindering the passage of critical legislation.

The Power of the Filibuster

The filibuster, a procedural tactic employed in the Senate, has traditionally been utilized to extend debate and prevent a vote on proposed legislation. While it has garnered criticism for obstructing progress, it has also proven effective in promoting deliberation, negotiation, and compromise. Codifying the filibuster and setting the threshold at say 65% would require lawmakers to build broad consensus and cross the partisan divide to pass major legislation. This move can incentivize politicians to seek common ground and foster a more collaborative environment.

Restoring Balance: Abortion Regulations

One contentious issue in American politics is abortion. The extremes of a complete ban on abortions versus unrestricted access have dominated the discourse, leaving little room for compromise. By employing the filibuster as a means of forging centrist policies, a more balanced approach can be sought that aligns with the beliefs of the majority.

While the outright ban on abortion may not be a viable solution, the concept of abortion in the later stages of pregnancy is also concerning to many. Reasons for abortion might include rape (I don't think it makes sense to compel a rape victim to carry the baby from a rapist. Again the woman in question can choose to carry the baby to full term, but she should not be compelled to do so), when the mother is at risk (based on overwhelming evidence that the life of the mother might be at risk, abortion should be allowed). While I know that over 90% of all abortions do not involve any of the 2 cases I have mentioned, the goal here is to find a compromise.

By working towards a consensus, it is conceivable that a substantial portion of the population could agree to limit abortions after say the third month of pregnancy. This compromise allows for abortion where the pain on the baby (and yes, it is a baby not a bag of tissues) and the emotional trauma could be the most minimal while addressing the concerns surrounding late-term abortions, fostering a more unified and cohesive society.

Promoting Reasonable Approaches: Gender Transition for Minors

Another divisive issue that requires nuanced deliberation is gender transition for minors. While it is crucial to support individuals' decision to express their gender identity any way they see fit, it is equally important to ensure that decisions with profound lifelong implications are made responsibly and with proper guidance.

By utilizing the filibuster as a tool to drive America back to the center, a focus on reaching broad-based agreements becomes possible. A consensus that children under the age of 18 should not make irreversible decisions about gender transitioning can be a sensible and inclusive approach. It acknowledges the complexity of the issue and the need to protect minors. You see if you decide to transition from male to female, it is actually not my own business, but I just need to make sure that you took the decision as an adult, not a baby. I am sure we can get 65% of lawmakers to move to that center.

Finding Common Ground: Firearm Ownership

Firearm ownership in the United States is a topic that elicits passionate responses from both ends of the political spectrum. While it may be difficult to completely remove guns from American society, there is an opportunity to seek common ground by implementing measures such as comprehensive background checks and regulating access to certain types of firearms.

By employing the filibuster to drive the nation back to the center, there is a potential for bipartisan consensus on these firearm regulations. Stricter background checks can ensure that firearms are not obtained by individuals with a history of violence or mental health issues, promoting public safety without infringing on Second Amendment rights. Additionally, bipartisan agreement can be sought to limit access to high-capacity magazines and military-style weapons, addressing concerns about mass shootings while respecting responsible gun ownership.

Other Areas for Filibuster

This same concept can be applied to other issues including immigration, crime, law enforcement, police reforms, race, healthcare, health insurance, military interventions, and confirmation of judges (this is very important because it makes no sense that judges have political leanings) amongst others.

Conclusion

The United States stands at a crossroads, where polarization threatens the very fabric of its society. As an observer looking at the American landscape, it is evident that a return to the art of compromise is necessary, where the voice of reason and moderation prevails. Codifying the filibuster and setting the threshold at say 65% offers a potential solution to recalibrate the political landscape. By encouraging bipartisan support, the nation can ensure that laws passed reflect the broad consensus of the American people.

Through the application of the filibuster, political leaders can be drawn back to the center, compelling them to transcend the limitations of extreme tendencies. By establishing a framework that promotes dialogue, negotiation, and compromise, America can foster more inclusive and effective governance.

To be clear, I am making a proposal that that will ensure that absolutely no vote or legislation passes without support from at least say 65% of the legislators (both Senate and House) and probably in the Supreme Court as well. This perspective from an observing eye underscores the potential of the codified filibuster to guide the nation toward a more united and prosperous future.