Filibuster Is When a Person

Filibuster is when a person uses parliamentary procedure to extend a debate - often to the point that time runs out on the bill and there can be no vote (Lazare, 1996). There are ways to get around a filibuster but they are time-consuming and not always successful. Some argue that a filibuster is a dangerous thing that should be avoided, and that it simply wastes time that could be put to much better use and keep the politicians moving bills through the system (Binder & Smith, 1996). Others believe the filibuster has merit and purpose, because it can be used to block the passage of laws that are potentially detrimental to society (Binder & Smith, 1996). While both arguments make sense, the position taken here is that filibusters are time-wasting tactics used by politicians who want to follow their own agenda and only want to block bills in which they do not believe. It is understandable that they would not support something to which they objected or something they felt was detrimental to the public, but there are other ways to address the issue - including simply not voting for the bill in question.

By filibustering, the politician is focused on only himself or herself and his or her beliefs and opinions about the bill in question, so it appears as though the will of the people or what would be best for society at large is not considered (Koger, 2010). That may or may not actually be true, but it is the way it appears to others. There have also been arguments that indicate some politicians want to hear themselves talk and they feel that their causes are more important than others, so they filibuster everything they can in order to keep their own agenda moving forward (Koger, 2010; Lazare, 1996). Politicians used to work for the good of the people, but now they appear to work only for themselves. Because of that, the people are losing hope in them and becoming untrusting. Filibustering is part of that. It shows that a politician is willing to stand up and do anything, including reading the phone book or talking about nonsense for hours, just because he or she disagrees with a bill that might actually be beneficial to society or could help change lives.

When a politician filibusters, it also wastes time that could be used for something significantly more important. There are many other bills that have to be voted on, and that cannot take place if there is a filibuster occurring. It would be far better to move forward instead of staying in one place because of petty disagreements (Koger, 2010). While the original purpose of a filibuster was to protect the people, the current purpose appears to be doing just the opposite (Lazare, 1996). The cost in taxpayer dollars is also a significant issue, because politicians are usually paid very well. If they spend all their time stuck in filibuster, they are essentially paid for doing nothing. The bills that should come up for a vote never do, and the session ends with nothing accomplished. Naturally, that is a serious concern for the public - especially when there are important and significant issues facing society that politicians must work to correct to keep the country moving in the right direction (Binder & Smith, 1996). As time has gone on, the public has tired of politicians that do not do what they have promised, and filibustering is part of that.

Those who agree with filibustering feel that it is an important way for politicians to block bills they are very concerned about or that they believe would be seriously harmful to the public. There is no argument that protecting the public is what politicians really should be doing, but the problem lies in the opinion of the politicians and whether they are actually doing what is right for the public, or what they think is right for the public. In other words, how is their level of objectivity when it comes to the bills they filibuster? Are they really deeply concerned about the public, or are they only focused on the level of control they have and what they think is correct? Those are questions that are very important to consider, and they are the same kinds of questions that are asked by those who do not believe filibustering is a good idea. The idea behind a filibuster is to prevent the passage of bad legislation, but it also prevents "good" legislation from getting through if even one politician has a very strong opinion and stance against it (Binder & Smith, 1996). Because that is the case, there is a serious lack of checks and balances used when filibustering is allowed. Stopping politicians from having the right to filibuster may allow some legislation to get through that some politicians do not like, but it would also keep the process of passing bills and making laws moving forward, which allows society and its laws to grow and develop.