Mr. Smith Goes To Washington is a classic of civic education. It is a decent film of course, draped in patriotism and a great David vs. Goliath battle of the yeoman fighting against the evil machine bosses. In my idealistic youth, I rather enjoyed it, but having grown more cynical it wears a little less well. At the same time I find its machine politics corruption out-dated, I find its happy ending a bit unlikely. But this is all an aside to the film’s ultimate sin. 

Capra, through Stewart’s Mr. Smith, uses the filibuster as a noble resort of the virtuous against those who would do harm. I reckon this film is the greatest point of exposure most people have to the filibuster, one casting it in a good light. But this isn’t an accurate portrayal of the filibuster, historically or in its modern form. The filibuster in reality is one of the greatest threats to the future prosperity of the United States, and I reckon Mr. Smith has had its fair role in helping to maintain this practice. 

Let’s start with some historical context. Initially, the Senate rules allowed a simple majority vote to close debate and move to the actual vote. However, cooperation at the time was such that this was seen as an unnecessary step so this was removed. Apparently the idea that someone would use the Senate’s unlimited debate provision to obstruct the actions of the majority was unthinkable in the early days. So let’s put to rest the concept that the filibuster is some precious function given to us by the founders or incorporated in the Constitution (which does specify a few areas where supermajorities are actually required). 

This meant that in theory, a single Senator could prevent a vote from happening (though the majority retained the ability to change the rules, as they do today). The first recorded filibuster wasn’t until 1837 and it was rarely used until the 1970s. Still, Woodrow Wilson (a political scientist, natch) was annoyed enough by one filibuster that he urged his party to change the rules to create the cloture motion, in 1917, originally requiring a 2/3rds vote to end debate. Up to the 1970s, the primary use of the filibuster was by proponents of slavery and segregation, though Huey Long used it in defense of economic populism. In the rare event that it was used, it was not typically for a noble purpose. 

The 1970s marked a turning point, though the cloture rule was changed to only require a 3/5ths vote, another change allowed the Senate to tackle multiple topics at once, meaning that the filibuster was no longer the long speech seen in Mr. Smith, but rather a behind the scenes effort. While this was likely a good-natured effort to prevent the filibuster from clogging up the Senate schedule, what it really did is lowered the cost of filibustering. As a result, the use of the filibuster (as seen in the graph below) rose steadily before skyrocketing in the past four years. Both parties have certainly been guilty or this obstruction, though it is the Republicans who have been distinctly likely to use the tactic.

Many argue that we simply need to go back to the pre-70s rule requiring the filibuster to actually hold the floor. This may well improve matters, but it misses the point. Theoretically, the purpose of a filibuster is the need for extended debate on an issue before voting, presumably because there are important things left unsaid. Yet, if anyone has watched C-SPAN, they’ll see that floor debate is pure theatre. Indeed, it would be an irresponsible Senator who doesn’t know, based on staff or leadership input, how he or she was going to vote on a given matter before final debate begins. Productive work, by necessity, takes place behind the scenes and in committee rather than on the floor, so the filibuster, like floor debate itself, is no great contribution to effective governance. What was grandstanding before is simple obstructionism now. 

We might excuse Mr. Smith’s grand 24 hour interruption of the Senate’s business if it were a once a year sort of deal like it was at that time, but what if these delays were actually taking place multiple times each week? It would prevent the Senate from taking on any business. In the 1960s, 8 percent of major legislation was subject to extended debate. In recent sessions that number has exceeded 70 percent. These delays suck up so much of the oxygen of the Senate that confirmations of Presidential appointments and many uncontroversial pieces of legislation are persistently delayed. This is a serious handicap on the executive branch to competently administer the duties of government. Fewer appointees should probably require confirmation, but we find that in the midst of major economic uncertainty, many positions at the Treasury Department are unfilled. Who knows if appointments to the Department of the Interior that might have better handled or even prevented the massive oil were held back due to obstruction? 

Beyond the handicapping of governance, perhaps the even graver threat of obstructionism is what it does to our ability to hold government accountable. Elections tend to be decided by economic conditions. If the economy is going well, we will reelect incumbents; if the economy is in a poor state, we will boot them out. This means a minority party has the incentive to make the economy worse. This isn’t much of a concern if they have no power to stop the majority from acting to improve matters, but if you give them a tool to prevent the majority from acting, you give the minority both the incentive and the power to ruin the country for political reward, and the public are not astute enough to see through their strategy. For democracy to work effectively, one needs to align the heuristics used by the public to determine how they will vote to actual measures of effectiveness. 

Even if you accept that Mr. Smith is set at a time when the filibuster was relatively harmless, by framing this particular Senate rule in such a positive light, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington has left a lingering conception of the filibuster even as the use of the rule has evolved radically. This popularity and false sense of historicism makes it rather tough to rally public support to the necessary efforts to reform or eliminate the filibuster and related anti-majoritarian holds that are at fault for much of Washington’s failures. So thanks for that Frank Capra and Jimmy Stewart.