In response to Savannah Thomas’s Nov. 22 column, “Limiting filibuster a remedy for stymied Congress.”
I couldn't agree more with Savannah Thomas’s article, “Limiting filibuster a remedy for stymied Congress.” No interest group, bloc, or 45 Senate Republicans must interfere with the path of progress that our nation is following. And since progressives necessarily hold the definitive views on what actions constitute progress, we must open all channels for their ideology to carry us forward in the 21st century.
Thomas correctly identifies the main problem with filibustering: an opposition Senator may use it to slow down the passage of laws and agendas proposed by the majority in the Senate. The act of filibustering is essentially anti-democratic in that a minority stands up to the influence and inertia of the majority. We have no need for that in a democracy, because we already know which viewpoints are worth imposing upon hundreds of millions of people. That is the purpose of elections! And I also agree that the rate at which our representatives impose new legislation upon us (i.e. the number of new laws passed in Congressional sessions) constitutes productivity. An inactive Congress is an unproductive Congress. Our old laws must be updated for new and therefore better laws, and I hope that Ms. Warren and Mr. Obama lead the way.
Ideally, I want no opposition to the path of progress, and I would approve of all measures that transfer more power into the hands of fewer people — as long as these people agree with what I believe in, of course. For the sake of democracy and progress, we must reduce or eliminate all pesky roadblocks that the minority places between us and Congressional productivity.
David Ludwick
Undergraduate
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
