The ”mom” in me is often tempted to give the entire Senate a “time-out.” But Senate historian Donald Ritchie reminded me that the Senate isn't really behaving badly. It's just behaving like the Senate.
“It’s not dysfunctional. They are functioning. They just aren’t functioning in a pretty way,” he told me in a conversation this week.
Before calling Ritchie, we rummaged around the Senate web site for a filibuster refresher. Until 1917, the right to a limitless debate was just that: Limitless. Filibusters were unstoppable, as Henry Clay learned in the 1840s. Prodded by President Woodrow Wilson, who wanted a vote on the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, the Senate created what we now recognize as the cloture vote. Only in those days it didn’t require 60 votes to cut off debate or overcome procedural objections as it does today. It required 67.
It wasn’t easy to get two-thirds of the Senate to agree on anything, so cloture votes were rare. Filibusters -- good old fashioned stem-winding filibusters by the likes of Huey Long and Strom Thurmond -- were not common but they persisted right up through the famous (infamous?) ones of the civil rights era.