The Case for the Filibuster: A Check on Zeitgeist Impulses | The American Spectator

Bob Capano makes an earnest and considerate point in his recent essay, “Trump’s Right: Nuke the Filibuster,” that the Senate filibuster is paralyzing the government and “empowers the minority party to block even routine legislation, forcing compromises that dilute policy or lead to inaction.” There’s truth in that. Our institutions are strained, and many Americans are frustrated by government gridlock. But conservatives have never measured success by legislative speed or volume. The Republican Party has traditionally been the party of prudence and limitation — the party that understands, as Russell Kirk did, that political institutions should restrain human passions. The filibuster seems to do just that. (RELATED: Trump’s Right: Nuke the Filibuster)

Government gridlock is not always dysfunction. We could have used more of it during COVID — remember how governments acted then? The filibuster is a tool of restraint, not paralysis. I sleep better knowing it is still in place.

Capano contends that “Trump’s advocacy for its elimination echoes the framers’ intent: a functional legislature where the elected majority can govern.” But the Founders did not design a government to govern us; they designed it to be operated by sober representatives who possess the skills to deliberate, compromise, and write stable and predictable laws. Just because Congress is doing a terrible job at the moment, why would we want to hand it more power?

The Senate, with its tradition of extended debate, was meant to cool the zeitgeist impulses. To “nuke” the filibuster would not be cool; it would be the opposite. It would transfer more political power to the ideological extremes, and conservatives should be wary as all get out about that prospect.

Kirk reminds us of the utility of “custom, convention, and continuity.” The filibuster is precisely that — a tradition meant to foster consensus and slow the rush of transient majorities. To junk it now would be to ignore another giant of conservative thought, G. K. Chesterton. He writes in The Thing (1929), “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle,” which is this: if you want to tear something down, like a fence, know why it was put up in the first place. Forgive me for the lack of confidence in the understanding of the value of the filibuster by those seeking to destroy it. Most just seem to want to tear it down to put in a parking lot. But the filibuster exists to force such a conversation — to prevent momentary majorities from doing very dumb things.

And here is where Capano rightly warns that “without the filibuster, Democrats could swiftly advance structural changes designed to entrench their power.” That’s true, and precisely why it needs to be preserved. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. How does this issue not terrify more people on both sides of the aisle?

Finally, Capano writes that “Republicans cannot afford to wait for this inevitability. By ending the filibuster now, with their trifecta in hand, they can ‘open the government’ to real progress.” All conservatives should be wary of anyone connecting government to progress. It is anathema to conservatism as I see it. The GOP is not the party of government; it is the party protecting citizens from government. Less government is always more liberty. (RELATED: Trump and the GOP Won the Shutdown. Let’s Make Sure Trophies Are Taken.)

And finally, the filibuster is not a “luxury”; it is a necessary guardrail that protects liberty from whoever happens to hold the reins of power. To “nuke” it would be a mistake conservatives would come to regret.

READ MORE from Pete Connolly:

Boys Need More Male Teachers

The New York Times Sets a New Low on Israel

Getting Back to an ‘Honorable Manhood’