Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Conservatives should be loudly clamoring for filibuster reform

Sign that reads, "End the Filibuster"
Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Carlson, a high school science teacher in Royal City, Wash., is a volunteer for RepresentUs, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for a broad array of democracy reforms.


The conservative values I was raised with and maintain to this day lead me to the conclusion that the filibuster has to be reformed or abolished. The filibuster hinders our modern political discourse and has a corrosive impact on Congress.

The filibuster allows our politicians to act without integrity, because they can too easily blame their inability to pass legislation on the filibuster. They tell us time and again they wish they could enact the agenda they ran on, but can't because of the filibuster. Therefore, many people don't even really expect politicians to keep their campaign promises — and the politicians know it. If the filibuster were eliminated, our legislators would have no excuse for their inaction.

The filibuster also allows politicians to hide from accountability. A filibuster is not automatic on every bill. A specific politician has to call for it. Filibusterers in the Senate know that filibusters generate very little press coverage. The media talks at length about how senators choose to vote, but the matter of a non-vote does not generate or sustain anywhere near the level of coverage. When the Senate fails to vote on measures month after month after month, those who are responsible for this inaction are never held accountable — and they know it. This allows them to block popular and necessary legislation time and time again and pay no political price for doing so.

There is no reason to think the authors of the Constitution would have supported our modern filibuster and every reason to think they would have been appalled. It's true that the Framers wanted it to be hard to pass laws. George Washington asked Thomas Jefferson why he poured coffee into a saucer. "To cool it," answers Jefferson. Washington replied, "Even so, we would pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."

Note that the coffee is poured into a saucer to be cooled prior to drinking, not poured to be discarded. Filibustered legislation that arrives "hot" from the House simply dies. The For the People Act arrived at the Senate as a "hot" piece of legislation. The bill was then "cooled" using the filibuster, reworked and reintroduced as the Freedom to Vote Act. But this new legislation was also filibustered, despite being rewritten to incorporate Republican Party ideas, such as a voter ID standard. As long as the filibuster remains intact, politicians will use it to prevent anything from being done that they perceive as damaging to partisan interests, regardless of the benefit to America.

Defenders of the filibuster say that it encourages bipartisanship. The evidence, however, points in the opposite direction. The last decade has seen an unprecedented surge in the number of filibusters, along with increased partisan polarization. While this doesn't necessarily mean the filibuster causes partisanship, it shows that it certainly doesn't help. If a minority party knows that legislation will pass, they will be incentivized to work with the majority party to shape the legislation as much to their liking as possible. Under the filibuster, no such incentive exists. Indeed, the incentive runs the other way, as the filibuster will protect one party's interests while simultaneously shielding politicians from being held accountable for partisan behavior.

Conservatives should be loudly clamoring for fixing the filibuster. I encourage you to reach out to your senator and ask that they do what is necessary to allow legislation to be passed and our country to move forward.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less