Return of the Talking Filibuster?

[Dill]

(03-08-2021, 11:00 AM)Au165 Wrote: Manchin mentioned on Sunday while he thinks the filibuster should stay intact he thinks that it should be "painful" to deploy and could be open to returning to the talking filibuster. I think it's interesting, and in general, I think if people would like to deploy the filibuster they should have to work to do so rather than simply sending an email.

Adam Jentleson has written a persuasive book on this subject, arguing for a return to "real" debate. 

Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate.
https://www.amazon.com/Kill-Switch-Crippling-American-Democracy/dp/1631497774

He reminds us that the Founders did not intend a system in which a minority could block the majority,

 Though it seems like the filibuster should induce moderation and cooperation, it does not; and the Framers had learned this themselves under the Articles of Confederation, in which a two thirds majority had to agree to get any legislation passed (22-23). 

Most of the book traces the rise of the filibuster, shaped by Calhoun and successors, to insure white supremacy, which it did all the way to 1964.

Now we are in a position where what Jentleson calls a "superminority"--which can be at times less than a third of the population--can effectively block any legislative program backed by the majority of Americans through its control of the Senate. This is a situation which creates an incentive in the minority to see the majority fail at governing. It also increases the power of that superminority's donors.  A bill supported by 90% of Americans could easily be blocked by a special interest.

Jentleson thinks that "every decision point in the Senate should be majority rule, aside from those assigned supermajority thresholds by the Constitution" [e.g., amending the Constitution]. . . . The Framers argued in clear terms that when faced with [controversial issues "where consensus is least achievable"], the majority should rule" (248).  That is--by simple majority.

He makes a number of recommendations for fixing the current broken system (e.g., decentralizing party leadership in the Senate; granting statehood to DC), but most important is the return to actual debate over legislation, and up or down votes. Set debating times for appropriate lengths so that minority arguments, in all their depth, can be heard. But no unlimited debate.