The art of the filibuster: A short venture in American history

In 1851, the Southern annexationist, General Narcisco Lopez, together with Kentucky Colonel William Chittendon and a small band of intrepid adventurers, “filibustered� their way, by armed expedition, into Cuba to wrest that island away from Spain, in contravention of two successive proclamations by presidents Taylor and Fillmore.

 They should have waited for Teddy Roosevelt and his “Rough Ridersâ€� in1898 to show how to do the job efficiently, effectively — and officially.

Colonel Crittendon and 50 other Southern volunteers were captured and executed, and shortly thereafter General Lopez was seized and publicly garroted in Havana. Although unable at the time to claim “Mission Accomplished,� they left the term “filibuster� (from a Dutch word for “pirate�) indelibly printed in the American lexicon.

Lessons from history are rarely learned. Thus the military adventurer William Walker, a few years later, led filibustering missions into Nicaragua and Honduras, where he was captured, courtmartialed and executed in 1860. What all this shows is that they knew how to deal with filibusterers in those days.

    u    u    u

Today, we are much more civilized, especially in the U.S. Senate, where the right of filibuster is enshrined in procedural Rule 22. (This is not the case in the House of Representatives, where members are accustomed to accepting a greater degree of personal constraint.)

Initially, the term “filibuster� in the Senate had a pejorative connotation, namely the “obstruction� of the work of that august body by means of endless, successive speechmaking. Over the years, with the Senate doing less and less work while making more and more speeches, the term has lost much of its pejorative meaning. It has become an increasingly routine way of doing business. Filibuster enables a partisan minority to obstruct the democratic principle of majority rule. The idea is better safe than sorry.

Now filibuster speechmaking is a long and tiring process for all concerned. So, to facilitate matters and preserve a more genteel sense of order in the Senate, it is no longer necessary under the Rules to actually invade another country or make lengthy speeches before a near empty chamber. Instead, it suffices for 41 members in the Senate to express a mere intention to filibuster, thus killing further consideration of the item, since it takes 60 votes to invoke closure of debate. You do the math.

    u    u    u

Thus on practically every significant piece of legislation or other important matter before the Senate, the Senators say: “To filibuster or not to filibuster, that is the question.� Yes, but it is not always obvious whether it is better to filibuster or not to filibuster. A case in point: Faced with the threat of the “nuclear option� (a change in the Rules), Democrats failed to filibuster against President George W. Bush’s nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. So, we got justices Roberts and Alito. Does that answer the question?

So, how should filibustering actually be done? Just ask those who do it best and the most. This year alone, a partisan minority in the U.S. Senate has launched 43 filibusters in the first seven months of the new Congress — an all time record. Silent but deadly. As a complementary strategy, President Bush has threatened 31 vetoes between May and August 2007 — another record. What are the beneficial outcomes of this form of cooperation between the executive and legislative branches of government?

    u    u    u

A partisan minority in the Senate has successfully blocked (or obstructed?) bipartisan reform legislation that would: (1) lower the price of prescription drugs for seniors; (2) invest in alternative energy sources while cutting subsidies for big oil; (3) require U.S. soldiers get adequate rest and training between tours in Iraq and Afghanistan; and (4) empower employees to join together to form unions at work.

Meanwhile, President Bush has vetoed legislation that would require him to end the occupation of Iraq and would allow stem cell research to go forward, in spite of the fact that each of these enjoyed overwhelming support from the American people and had passed both the House and Senate. In regard to other legislation that somehow got through Congress over the past six years, the president has conveniently attached “signing statements� warning us that he doesn’t necessarily intend to faithfully execute the law (notwithstanding the rather “quaint� oath of office provision in Article II of the Constitution of the United States).

    u    u    u

Filibustering in the Senate plus presidential vetoes and signing statements, some say, are a combined blessing in disguise. The risks of complex new legislation are avoided. The time and work of Congress is saved. Actual spending on social programs is greatly reduced. And the federal resources thus saved (namely your taxes) can be more fully devoted to President Bush’s own filibuster in Iraq — and perhaps Senator Lieberman’s in Iran. Thus, if we keep this up, we can truly say that this is a “do-nothing� Congress, and finally, yes, “Mission Accomplished.� Already, plans are under way for those who filibuster to blame those who are the victims of filibuster.

So, fear not. Senatorial filibustering is as American as apple pie. But will we ever see the end of it? Well, maybe. This is just a hypothetical question, not really a suggestion, but something worth thinking about: What would happen if it were the new majority in Congress that decided to exercise the “nuclear option�? What then?

Sharon resident Anthony Piel is a former director and legal counsel of the World Health Organization.