Filibuster (pronounced fil-uh-buhs-ter
(U) or fil-e-bust-ah (non-U))
(1) In US politics, the use of irregular or obstructive
tactics by a member of a legislature to prevent the adoption of a measure
generally favored or to attempt to force a decision against the will of the
majority.
(2) An exceptionally long speech, as one lasting for a
day or days, or a series of such speeches to accomplish this purpose.
(3) A member of a legislature who makes such a speech.
(4) By extension, delaying tactics generally.
(5) Historically, an irregular military adventurer,
especially one who engages in an unauthorized military expedition into a
foreign country to foment or support a revolution.
(6) By
extension, to engage in unlawful and private military action; a mercenary soldier
(obsolete).
1580–1590: From the Spanish filibustero (pirate), from the Middle French flibustier, a variant of fribustier
and probably from the Dutch vrijbuiter
(pirate (literally “one plundering freely”).
The construct in Dutch was vrij (free)
+ buit (booty) + -er (agent), hence the later English noun
“freebooter”. Etymologists note the alteration
in the first syllable in French was due to the word being somewhat conflated
with vlieboot (light, flat-bottomed
cargo vessel with two or three masts) when it was borrowed from the Dutch. By virtue of the Dutch colonial empire,
filibuster was picked up by Indonesian and, as fèilìbǎshìtuō (費力把事拖／费力把事拖), by Chinese.
Filibuster is a noun &
verb, filibusterer & filibusterism are nouns, filibusterous is an adjective,
filibustering & filibustered are verbs and filibusterist is a noun & adjective; the noun
plural is filibusters.
There’s
some murkiness about the word’s entry into English, perhaps because the first
use was among sailors at sea. The first
recorded instance seems to have been flibutor
meaning “pirate” and referring to buccaneers operating in Caribbean waters
(almost always French, Dutch, and English “adventurers” (ie pirates)) and that
was some sort of variant (possibly an imperfect echoic) of the Dutch vrijbueter (the modern spelling vrijbuiter) (freebooter), the word used
of the regions pirates and picked up in Spanish (filibustero) & French (flibustier
(earlier fribustier)) forms. If was this origin which led to the later use
in English of “freebooter” to mean “a mercenary; a soldier of fortune” and
later still to those irregular combatants, organized into loose (but still
structured) formations in the US and travelling during the mid-nineteenth century
to Central America or the Spanish West Indies, usually after being hired by a
state or insurrectionist force, either to put down or conduct a revolt.
Although
now most associated with US politics (notable the Senate), the use of “filibuster”
to describe the parliamentary tactic appears not widely to have been used in
this context until 1865 although the practice was first this described in 1861,
the curious linguistic adoption is explained by the appeal of the notion of obstructionist
or recalcitrant legislators acting “like pirates” on the floor of the chamber
to “plunder and overthrow” the established order of authority; because of
events in Central America and the Caribbean, the word (used in the paramilitary
sense since 1853) was in the news Originally,
“filibuster” was used to describe the “ringleader” senator but so
institutionalised did it become in Senate procedures that by the early 1890s it
was understood as the actual mechanism.
As a delaying tactic, then, as now, it wasn’t exclusive to the Senate
bit because of the Senate’s rules, composition and numbers, it was there it
could be most effective. As a tactical mechanism in the US Senate, filibuster
continues to enjoy its historic meaning but it’s long been used in many contexts
as “verbal shorthand” for “delaying tactic; obstructionism; act of procrastination”
and in the US Senate, filibusters can be ended by an act of “cloture” (from the French
clôture (closure) and a doublet of
closure and clausure (from Late Latin
clausūra, from the Classical Latin clauses) (the act of shutting up or
confining; confinement).
In its
pure form (under rules which permitted “unlimited debate”, subject only to a closing
vote by a two-thirds majority among an assembled quorum) the filibuster existed
only to 1917 when the first cloture act was passed. Since then there have been a number of
refinements, all designed to limit the extent to which the filibuster can be
used to defy the will of a clear majority and in certain situations, most
notably votes confirming the appointment of judges to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court
of the US) only a bare majority (ie 51 out of 100) is now required, a
significant change from what prevailed for most of the republic’s existence when
at least 60 votes were needed, something which meant at least some bipartisan
support was usually essential. That
applied also to other presidential appointments such as federal judges and
cabinet members.
Lindsay
Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.
It was
during the administration of George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; US president
2001-2009) that the Republican Party began exploring a way to neuter the filibuster
which was slowing up (in some cases stopping) their project and what they wanted
as a change to the Senate rules which would allow judicial nominees to pass
with a simple majority, something obviously topical because the GOP then held
51 Senate seats. The Republicans plotters
first gave their scheme the code-name “The Hulk” but it was them majority
leader Trent Lott (b 1941) who gave it the name which stuck: the “Nuclear
Option”. That had some resonance because
the point about the use of nuclear weapons is that things can get out of hand
and the ensuing conflict can be equally damaging to both sides, something which
may explain the long historical reluctance by senators to tinker too much with
the filibuster, both sides aware they may need it one day. In one of those charming coincidences, Senator
Lott was compelled to resign the majority leadership because he made a speech praising
old Strom Thurmond’s (1902-2003; US senator (Republican- South Carolina)
1954-2003) segregationist policies when running as the Dixiecrat candidate in
the 1948 presidential election. It’s old
Senator Thurmond who still holds the record for the Senate’s longest single-person
filibuster, his mark of 24 hours: 18 minutes set in August 1957 in an attempt to
prevent the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1957). The act passed into law. Trent Lott is a confessed Freemason.
Three
wise men who, as senate majority leaders, would, from time-to-time, change
their views on things: Harry Reid (left), Mitch McConnell (centre) and Trent
Lott (right).
As
things worked out, the Republicans increased their majority in 2004 and they
were never compelled use the nuclear option but by 2013, with the Democrats now
enjoying a majority, it was them being filibustered, frustrating their (many)
attempts to fill judicial vacancies. Accordingly,
the Democratic majority leader, old Harry Reid (1939–2021; US senator
(Democrat, Nevada) 1987-2017), pulled the trigger, changing the Senate’s rules
to permit nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships to be with a bare
majority of 51 votes, the Republican & Democratic positions on the issue
now reversed from a decade earlier. Then
Republican minority leader, old Mitch McConnell (b 1942; US senator
(Republican- Kentucky) since 1985) warned darkly: “You'll regret this, and you may regret this
a lot sooner than you think.”
It’s believed Harry Reid’s middle name (Mason) was a coincidence and it’s
not believed he was ever a Freemason although he did as a young man convert to
Mormonism.
Notably,
Senator Reid must have understood Senator McConnell’s words because he didn’t
aim the nuclear option at Supreme Court nominees, meaning it was still necessary
to gather at least 60 votes to confirm an appointment. However, control of the Senate shifted back
to the Republicans in the 2014 mid-term elections and in one of his sneakier
moves, Senator McConnell decided the house wouldn’t consider the matter of
SCOTUS vacancies and delayed things in the hope it would be a Republican in the
White House to make the nomination(s).
That attracted much criticism as both naked cynicism and an “unprecedented
breach of political conventions” but Senator McConnell knew the rules and his
faith was rewarded when Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) won. Quickly, Senator McConnell pressed the nuclear
button, saying that although he led the opposition to what Senator Reid had
done in 2013, that had set a precedent and it was one the Republican majority
was going to follow. That was quite a
stretch given the simple majority rule had never been applied to the SCOTUS but
again, Senator McConnell knew the rules and he had Mr Trump's nominee confirmed in a 54-45
vote.
