Blame it on politics, not the existence of the filibuster

Regarding Neil Auwarter's January 7 guest column, "Of filibusters and festive bachelors: The dark purpose of the Senate's minority rule," I concur with his conclusion that both the Senate majority and minority use the filibuster for political purposes. Further, I agree with Mr. Auwarter's call to end the filibuster, but only as soon as the party in the minority proposes its end at the beginning of a congressional term when the House, Senate and presidency are all held by the other party.

Democrats had the chance, but didn't make that proposal during Donald Trump's presidency. They instead gathered the written support of Republicans not to end the filibuster, and then went on to use it to block almost all of Trump's legislative agenda. Nor is it likely that Republicans will make such an offer during Joe Biden's term, especially when matters such as approving two new states, federalizing election rules and expanding the Supreme Court remain on the agenda.

So, however it came about, and however it may be used to disguise actual positions on legislation, until an out-of-power political party is so inclined to end it, the filibuster should remain in place to serve the laudable purpose of being the last check against absolute political control and the likely shortsighted and foolish consequences of that.

The good news is both parties know that. Consequently, employing a variation of Mr. Auwarter's thesis, if there is a vote, there will be a number of Democrat senators who will vote to end the filibuster for political cover purposes, but there just won't be quite enough votes to actually change the rule.

Blame it on politics, not the existence of the filibuster. 

-- Michael E. Wooten

Irvine