Language and the Filibuster

While I’m on the subject of the creeping appropriation of terms to mean something new, I’d draw attention to an article by The Atlantic by James Fallows which includes a reader email protesting the description of the blockage of a bill in the Senate that commanded a majority vote as a “defeat” for the bill by the Senate.

Your hear this sort of the thing all the time now, as though the rules of the Senate had been changed to define “majority” as meaning the 60 votes necessary to invoke cloture. It’s invidious.

Even if this has become a de facto reality, there is a lot to be said for insisting on more precise language, such as “Senate passage of bill blocked by filibuster,” or at a minimum “bill fails to get 60 votes necessary for passage.” If we allow minorities to become majorities by sheer assertion, then such words have little real meaning any more.

Donate Now to the Washington Monthly and your gift will be doubled

Ed Kilgore

Ed Kilgore is a political columnist for New York and managing editor at the Democratic Strategist website. He was a contributing writer at the Washington Monthly from January 2012 until November 2015, and was the principal contributor to the Political Animal blog.