If we want our federal government to function appropriately, it’s essential for our leaders to take a page from the past—providing a system that works for everyone, not just a select few. This means they need to be willing to compromise, even though that might require more time and conversation than we’re used to.
Right now, Congress feels pretty broken. Issues like immigration, healthcare, education, and election processes are just sitting there, unresolved. It’s frustrating and, honestly, something needs to change. But progress? It’s hard to find.
This standstill has led to significant dysfunction in the federal government. Important issues rarely see any real legal solutions. Congress has shifted away from its duty as the main mediator of disputes, ceding that power to the executive and judicial branches. As a result, those branches have gained an outsized influence. The federal bureaucracy has grown into what feels like a fourth branch of government, churning out a mountain of regulations. At the same time, the judiciary has encroached upon executive powers, where district judges can counter presidential actions based on overwhelmingly limited hearings.
A big factor in this mess is the filibuster. Without a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate, a bill could just sit there indefinitely. This isn’t solving our problems; it’s kind of a disaster in slow motion.
Yet, eliminating the filibuster—specifically, the 60-vote requirement to end debate—could be a real blunder. It might lead to what some would label “the tyranny of the majority.” If one party controls the White House, the House, and the Senate, they could exert total power, sidelining the minority’s views. That’s not the system we should want. No, that could spiral into a real mess.
We need to find common ground. A compromise between the two major parties is essential; a winner-takes-all scenario is not what we should strive for.
Some have proposed resurrecting the “talking filibuster.” I think this could definitely help, but calling it a filibuster still feels counterproductive to pursuit of genuine compromise. The term suggests obstruction. There’s a lack of consensus here. While a talking filibuster might make it harder to block progress, it can still be a hurdle to finding common ground.
It’s interesting to note that the framers of our Constitution had their own serious concerns. Smaller states worried about being overshadowed by larger states. Rural areas feared industrial ones. The South had its suspicions of the North. Still, they managed to put aside their differences and build a governing framework that has lasted nearly 250 years.
How did they manage that?
Well, they didn’t leave until they sorted things out. They locked themselves in Independence Hall and engaged in monthly debates over the new government’s structure until they reached a series of compromises that had general acceptance.
Imagine if today’s Senate was given a similar mandate. It’s hard to picture that happening.
The crux of the issue lies in how discussions are conducted. Current Senate debates often look more like political theater than genuine dialogue. There’s a lot of grandstanding and posturing for constituents’ applause, rather than meaningful exchanges. An honest discussion involves sifting through misrepresentations and engaging with real ideas. That’s what we should aim for.
Here’s a thought on addressing the Senate’s issues: once a topic is up for debate, senators should be required to remain until a solution is found. We might consider keeping them in Washington for more than 60 hours each week, locked in and focused until they come to an agreement. It would force them into a corner—no option but to find common ground. If either side makes unreasonable demands, the duration of the debate could just get extended. Eventually, they’d likely tire of that and come up with something workable.
This could empower moderates, who seem to be dwindling in today’s climate. There will always be hardliners, no doubt about that. But if the debate structure changes, moderate senators who listen to both sides could regain some balance of power.
Just think about it. The Senate tackles healthcare and finds a compromise after three months. Then, they could move on to immigration, education, even electoral reform. Sure, it might take years to hash everything out, but at least we’d be on a path to a functioning government. This only happens if we encourage the Senate to embrace deliberation and discussion, with rules that persist until issues are resolved. Is this an idealistic view? Maybe. But perhaps we saw something similar in the past. It’s possible to create that dynamic again if there’s the will.
