Thread by @julianzelizer

Presidential candidate @ewarren called for eliminating the Senate filibuster, the infamous procedure which allows a minority of the chamber to tie up legislation indefinitely. /1

Today @ewarren explained that filibusters were used by conservatives to block anti-lynching legislation in the 1920s and 1930s. “An entire century of obstruction because a small group of racists stopped the entire nation from doing what was right.” /2
thehill.com/homenews/senat…

Those are strong words. But she is onto something important. /3

Importantly, the filibuster is not inscribed into the Constitution. As @bindersab and Steven Smith have explained, the filibuster is a tradition that was adopted in the 19th century. /4
amazon.com/Politics-Princ…

The Senate adopted the “cloture” rule in 1917, enabling a certain number of Senators to end a filibuster. According Rule 22, two-thirds of the Senate present and voting could stop a handful of senators who kept talking to prevent voting on a bill./5
senate.gov/artandhistory/…

At the @NationalAction @ewarren tapped into a powerful 20th century liberal tradition whose proponents argue that this anti-majoritarian procedure--in an institution that already benefits small states—needs to go./6

The reason is simple. In the Senate, which the journalist William White called the “South’s unending revenge upon the North for Gettysburg,” a conservative coalition of Southern Democrats and Midwestern Republicans depended on filibusters to block progressive legislation. /7

In 1938, Louisiana’s Allen Ellender, who said “I believe in white supremacy, and as long as I am in the Senate I expect to fight for white supremacy,” stifled an anti-lynching bill by mounting a six-week filibuster. /8

If you want a great history of the filibuster, told through a riveting narrative, see Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate. One of my favorite nonfiction books ever. @five_books /9
fivebooks.com/best-books/con…

Writing in @newrepublic, Illinois Senator Paul Douglas argued that filibuster reform “may seem to be a barren and arid matter of parliamentary procedure. It involves, however, the whole question as to whether Congress will ever be able to pass civil-rights legislation.” /10

Truman, hoping to push a civil rights package, supported filibuster reform in 1949. After a tough floor fight, liberals were only able to muster the votes needed to change the rule from two-thirds of the Senate present and voting to two-thirds of the entire chamber. /11

During his first year as a Senator from Minnesota (1949-1950), Hubert Humphrey angered conservatives in his party by calling the filibuster “undemocratic” and “evil.” /12

Humphrey had made a name for himself at the 1948 Democratic Convention by championing civil rights laws: "The time is now arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights." /13

The fight for filibuster reform continued. In 1951, the NAACP listed filibuster reform as equally important as fighting employment discrimination. /14

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, an umbrella civil rights organization, listed filibuster reform alongside anti-lynching legislation and ending segregation. /15

Unable to eliminate filibusters, liberal Democrats focused on organizing and mobilizing to defeat the conservative coalition. In 1964, liberal Democrats devoted their resources to ending the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They were victorious. /16

Filibuster reform remained a rallying cry for liberal Democrats throughout the 1960s and early 1970s. I wrote about this in my second book, On Capitol Hill @CambridgeUP /17
amazon.com/Capitol-Hill-S…

Senator Mondale said filibusters had "been used repeatedly by a small group of Senators as a method for stopping action and avoiding compromise on measures which have been carefully considered and which were favored by...an overwhelming majority of the people of this Nation.” /18

In 1975, the Senate settled on a compromise. The Senate lowered the number needed to achieve cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths (67 to 60). The editors of @nytimes complained that “it amounts of virtually no change.” /19

The editors were right. In fact, the use of filibusters exploded in the coming decades. Here is a graph from the @TCFdotorg documenting the trend. /20

The most recent filibuster reforms, with regards to presidential nominees, to took place under @HarryReid in 2013 and @senatemajldr in 2017. /21

Now, @ewarren has brought filibuster reform back into the spotlight. Democrats would do well to think about the fundamental argument that she has restored from the heyday of liberalism: without institutional reform, progress on vital policy questions is nearly impossible. /22

@brianbeutler has made a strong case on the filibuster. /23
crooked.com/articles/democ…

In 2019, more Democrats are reaching the conclusion that it's time to pay more attention to rules and procedures--filibusters, redistricting, the Electoral College, campaign finance and more--that hamper progress on issues like climate change and immigration reform. /end

@threadreaderapp unroll