Congress remains locked in a political standoff in what is now the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. While headlines focus on immediate negotiations, such as public safety nets and healthcare, and understandably so, a broader danger lies in how institutional norms might be compromised under political pressures.
Among the most destructive possibilities is the elimination of the Senate filibuster.
The filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation, is not a procedural gimmick. It is a structural safeguard rooted in the Senate’s distinct constitutional role compared to the House. Preserving it is essential to maintaining balance, protecting the minority voice, and preventing the kind of rapid, destabilizing policy shifts that the Founders feared.
The Federalist Papers, particularly 51, make clear that the framers intended for the government to act deliberately, not impulsively. James Madison believed legislative authority naturally predominates and argued the remedy was to divide the legislature and make each chamber operate on different principles. The Senate filibuster is a core procedural embodiment of the vision. While it’s frustrating for the majority party, that's the intention.
While the filibuster is not explicitly in the Constitution, it is consistent with the Founders’ intent. It originated in the early 1800s, when the Senate dropped a rule allowing debate to be cut off. The change gave rise to extended debate and encouraged broader consensus. It has been used by both parties throughout American history, including by Robert Byrd, who attempted to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet that landmark law ultimately passed under existing Senate rules after one of the longest debates in history, when a bipartisan supermajority voted to invoke.
Not every bill is as noble as the Civil Rights Act.
Critics claim it obstructs progress. But what some call obstruction, the Constitution calls caution. Major legislation is meant to be hard to pass, because laws that dramatically reshape the nation should not be enacted by a single-vote margin. While eliminating the filibuster may seem efficient, it risks transforming enduring consensus into volatile policymaking; precisely what the Founders hoped to prevent.
Imagine a Senate where every change in majority control brings dramatic policy reversals. When Democrats regain power, and they will, there will be calls to grant statehood to Washington, D.C., pack the Supreme Court, and more. Without the filibuster, little would stand in their way. They’ve already portrayed Republicans negatively, laying the rhetorical groundwork to justify such moves as necessary to “sustain democracy.”
This is why Senate Republicans, even if under intense political pressure, must not take the bait. The shutdown, serious as it is, cannot become an excuse to undermine a cornerstone of the institution.
Some may argue, “Democrats will blow up the filibuster later on, so why shouldn’t Republicans do it so they can at least move their policies forward?”
Because once that line is crossed, it cannot be uncrossed. Republicans would not only share the blame, but we would wear the legacy of being the party that weakened the Senate beyond recognition. If Democrats are determined to dismantle norms, let them do it on their own record. Let them own that terrible mistake.
By the time this op-ed appears, I hope the shutdown has ended, and not because the so-called nuclear option was deployed. It may look like a shortcut, but eliminating the filibuster is the political equivalent of the Manhattan Project: once used, it permanently alters the Senate’s landscape. The Senate’s structure reflects the wisdom of Founders who understood that liberty survives best when government moves cautiously and consensus anchors change. The filibuster embodies that principle.
Preserve the filibuster.
Dustin Isaacs is from Sand Gap and has over a decade of experience in political consulting, campaigns, and elections. He is currently Deputy Communications Director for the GOP Senate President’s Office. These views are his own and do not reflect those of his employer.