Evening star., 1949-03-01
FiIibusters and Democracy

A classic defense of the f1libuSter came
from the elder LaFollette, one of the great
Senate liberals of all time, in these words
Believing that stand for democracy,
for the liberties of the people of this
country, for the perpetuation of our free
institutions, I shall stand while l am a
member of this body against any cloture
that denies free and unlimited debate.
Sir, the moment that the majority imposes
the restrictions imposed in the pending
rule, that moment you will have dealt a
blow to liberty, you will have broken down
one of the greatest weapons against wrong
and oppression that the members of this
body possess"
Behind the cloture fight that began in
the Senate yesterday is the civil rights
legislation and one Is apt to classify as
liberals" those who favor civil rights legiS
lation as against the conservatives" who
oppose it, But the true liberal would be
more apt to oppose cloture and defend the
filibuSter than otherwise. And while there
are many things that in truth may be said
against the filibuSter one of them Is not
that it is undemocratic Existence of the
f1libuster device, no matter how 1t may be
used, is as true as any evidence that we
operate under a democratic system. Only
in a democracy could the filibuster exist.
The cloture rule against which the liberal
LaFollette inveighed in 1917 is the rule
that is up for extension in the Senate now.
It's opponents will see, in this extension,
one more step toward curtailing the free
dom of unlimited debate that Senator La
Toilette warned against thirty-nine years
ago, and they may point with real alarm
to the next move that may follow in
another forty years as a whiting down
process. But Senator LaFollette's dire pre-
dictions of what would happen under
cloture, in the way of liberties lost, did
not materialize. Cloture has been sought
teen different occasions and only four
times has cloture won.
The danger is not in the rule. or the
extension that is now sought in the rule.
The danger if any there is, Is in the loss
of Senate respect for free and unlimited
debate. There is little in the records that
would indicate any such loss of respect.
The proposed extension of the rule would
make cloture apply, on two-thirdS vote, to
any matter before the Senate as distinct
from pending measure" 1t would fur
ther restrain, but not remove the ability
of Senate minority to fllibuster. But If
two thirds of the Senate-the same mar
gin the Constitution makers we're willing
to trust for ratification of treaties expul-
sion of members, impeachment and over
riding of vetoes-wants an issue brought
to a vote by limiting debate to one hour
per Senator, we are not apt to find any
Senate majority riding roughshod over
minority. The Senators are still jealous
of their conception of the Senate as the
body of deliberation. They will not be
found welcoming with open arms a mo-
ton for cloture on any question, no matter
how strongly they may feel about the issue
involved.
A greater danger would lie in cloture by
majority vote. Two years ago Senator
Tydings spoke against that proposition in
language which should be repeated today.
Majority to hades. The rule of petty
political preference -. the rule that has
brought more bloodshed and turmoil and
cruelty on this earth than any other thing
I know of !" And, he might have
added, the rule that deliberative legiS-
lative body in a democracy should shun
at any cost.