The Filibuster in Glorious Rivals: From Rare Principle to Routine Gridlock
What Is the Filibuster in Glorious Rivals?
In Glorious Rivals (Chapter 3, “Mr. Smith Goes Overboard”), the filibuster is a Senate rule permitting unlimited debate. Unlike a constitutional provision, it emerged from parliamentary tradition and was shaped by norms rather than statutes. The book traces its origins to Thomas Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which cautioned against “speak[ing] impertinently, or beside the question.” The Founders—especially Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 22—feared obstruction could render government dysfunctional, preferring “contemptible compromises” to fatal delays. Yet the filibuster endured as a rarely used safeguard for minority rights.
The story follows the filibuster from a tool of principled obstruction—epitomized by the 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington—to a everyday mechanism for gridlock. The book’s central argument is that the filibuster’s transformation reflects a deeper erosion of Senate culture, not simply a change in rules.
The Arc of the Filibuster: From Mr. Smith to Gridlock
The book uses Frank Capra’s film as a hopeful vision: a young senator talking nonstop to expose corruption. That ideal contrasts sharply with modern reality. The first recorded filibusters occurred over slavery and Reconstruction, but the practice remained uncommon through the 19th century. A pivotal shift came in 1917 when Senator Woodrow Wilson complained that a “little group of willful men” blocked his agenda, leading to Rule 22 allowing cloture by two-thirds supermajority.
Key milestones include the 1964 Civil Rights Act filibuster—the longest in history at 57 days—which ended when 67 senators voted for cloture. After that, the Senate became “more battle hardened.” The 1975 reduction of the cloture threshold to three-fifths made filibusters easier to overcome but did not slow their rise. In the 44 years between Wilson and Eisenhower, only 23 cloture votes occurred. From 2007 to mid-2014, the majority sought cloture 414 times. The book notes that use of the filibuster exploded not because of rule changes, but because of a breakdown in “senatorial comity and personal connections.”
Personal Relationships and Institutional Trust
A central theme in Glorious Rivals is the role of personal relationships in enabling collaboration. The filibuster’s decline is tied to the erosion of these bonds. The story of Senator Pete Domenici and Chairman Russell Long illustrates this: Long gave his word to protect Domenici’s amendment, stating, “The Senate can only operate if senators can rely on each other’s word.” Such trust once deterred excessive obstruction.
The book contrasts this with the modern era, where former Senate majority leaders Tom Daschle and Trent Lott lament that filibusters are no longer painful: “You just push it aside.” The lack of personal stakes makes obstruction routine. The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), founded by Howard Baker and Bob Dole, embodies the attempt to rebuild such relationships. Links to Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and the role of personal relationships in politics theme show how these figures valued collegiality.
Procedural Escalation: Filling the Tree and the Nuclear Option
The book details tactical arms races that worsened gridlock. In 1980, Senator Robert Byrd “filled the tree”—offering perfunctory amendments to block others from amending a bill. Republicans retaliated by filibustering motions to proceed. This spiral escalated: Majority Leader Harry Reid filled the tree 70 times between 2007 and 2013. In 2013, Senate Democrats invoked the “nuclear option” to eliminate filibusters for most presidential nominees, lowering the threshold to 50 votes. Senator John McCain warned, “This changes everything.”
The filibuster thus becomes a symbol of institutional decline and reform. The book warns that eliminating the filibuster entirely would remove the obligation to engage the other side, unraveling a “unique bond of American democracy.” Senator Olympia Snowe argues that making the Senate a majority institution would lose the ability to build consensus. The theme of unintended consequences of reform is clear: each procedural “fix” often deepens dysfunction.
The Filibuster as a Mirror of Institutional Decline
The filibuster functions as a concrete symbol of the breakdown of deliberative democracy. The book contrasts the “talking filibuster” of Jefferson Smith with the modern “silent” filibuster, where senators merely signal intent to block, without holding the floor. This shift embodies the loss of transparency vs. deliberative privacy. The decline of the Senate barbershop, the Monocle restaurant, and commuter Congress all reflect the erosion of time spent together.
Proposed reforms include the “talking filibuster” (introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley) and eliminating filibusters on motions to proceed. Yet the book insists that fixing the Senate’s culture—not just its rules—is essential. Bipartisanship and collaboration require rebuilding trust, as exemplified by the successful child care bill debated openly in 2014, passing 96–2. The filibuster, once a life preserver, now represents the structural weakness the book seeks to address.
Study Questions and Answers
1. How does the book use the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to illustrate the filibuster’s ideal? The film presents the filibuster as a heroic tool for a principled outsider to expose corruption. In the movie, Senator Jefferson Smith talks nonstop for nearly 24 hours, eventually forcing a guilty colleague to confess. The book uses this image to contrast with modern obstruction, where filibusters are procedural and lack personal sacrifice. The ideal is of honest debate; the reality is routine gridlock.
2. What role did personal relationships play in the filibuster’s history according to the book? Personal relationships once deterred excessive filibustering. The story of Senators Russell Long and Pete Domenici demonstrates trust: Long protected Domenici’s amendment because he had given his word, even though he opposed the policy. The book argues that the erosion of such bonds—due to commuter Congress, reduced socializing, and increased fundraising—has made filibusters easier and more frequent. When senators no longer rely on each other’s word, obstruction becomes an abstract strategic move.
3. Explain the “filling the tree” tactic and its connection to the rise of filibusters. “Filling the tree” is a procedural maneuver where the majority leader offers amendments that occupy all available slots, preventing other senators from offering amendments. First used by Robert Byrd in 1980, it sparked retaliation: Republicans began filibustering motions to proceed, creating a tactical arms race. Majority Leader Harry Reid used it 70 times, mirroring the exponential increase in filibuster use. The tactic shows how procedural innovations meant to bypass obstruction instead amplified it.
4. Why does the book resist abolishing the filibuster entirely, and what alternative reforms does it propose? The book argues that abolishing the filibuster would remove the obligation for the majority to engage the minority, making the Senate a majoritarian institution and damaging democratic culture. It proposes the “talking filibuster” (requiring senators to hold the floor) and eliminating filibusters only on motions to proceed. More importantly, it stresses rebuilding personal relationships and trust, citing successful efforts like the bipartisan child care bill that followed open debate and amendment process.