Historical tradition tells us that George Washington once told Thomas Jefferson that the Senate was like a saucer into which legislation is poured to cool. The metaphor captured the Senate’s original purpose: to slow lawmaking, restrain fleeting passions, and protect minority interests, especially those of smaller states.
For many Alabama conservatives, the idea of eliminating the Senate filibuster has an understandable appeal. We control the Senate now, the thinking goes, so why not make lawmaking easier?
But this impulse is short-sighted. Eliminating the filibuster would undermine the very principles conservatives claim to value: federalism, limited government, and the protection of Alabama’s values.
The filibuster is not a partisan trick suddenly weaponized by liberals. It is a structural safeguard designed to prevent narrow national majorities from imposing their will on the states. Alabama is a smaller, conservative state, whose roughly 5 million residents are represented by U.S. Sens. Tommy Tuberville and Katie Britt. Without the filibuster, they could be steamrolled by senators from California, New York, and Illinois, states that together represent nearly 80 million people – states whose values often diverge sharply from ours.
Consider the national policy issues Alabama conservatives care about most: pro-life protections, gun rights, school choice, energy independence, and religious liberty. Without the filibuster, any slim national majority could quickly impose laws overriding Alabama’s preferences. A coastal liberal majority could mandate zoning policies that drive up housing costs in rural counties, impose energy regulations that cripple our coal and gas sectors, or enact sweeping national gun restrictions. The filibuster serves as a firewall that ultimately slows these efforts, forces compromise, or stops them altogether.
At its core, this is about federalism. Alabama conservatives have long argued that states, not distant bureaucrats in Washington, should make most policy decisions. Eliminating the filibuster concentrates power in national majorities and weakens state authority. If conservatives truly care about limited government and state sovereignty, they should be wary of accelerating the centralization of power in Washington.
Ending the filibuster is also dangerously short-term thinking. Today, Republicans may control the Senate. Tomorrow, they may not. Once the filibuster is gone, every progressive agenda item becomes a simple majority vote: national abortion policy, gun control, federal housing mandates, energy restrictions, or federalized education standards. What conservatives celebrate as a victory today could become a permanent weapon wielded against them tomorrow. If you wouldn’t trust Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with unchecked power, you shouldn’t trust a future Democratic Senate majority to respect Alabama’s values.
Fast-moving legislation may sound appealing to those frustrated with Washington gridlock, but a more pliable Congress makes it easier for presidents to rule by fiat. Executive orders, emergency powers, and regulatory overreach flourish when Congress no longer acts as a brake. Conservatives often complain [rightly] about unchecked executive power. Eliminating the filibuster would only accelerate that trend.
Gridlock, in many cases, is not a flaw but a feature. Government is inherently dangerous when unchecked. The filibuster slows Washington down, ensuring that major changes pass through deliberation, negotiation and consensus-building. If Alabama conservatives truly believe in limited government, we should not demand faster lawmaking, we should demand more responsible lawmaking.
Destroying the filibuster may offer Alabama Republicans a short-term legislative win. But in the long run, it erodes federalism, weakens state power, encourages executive overreach, and hands future progressive majorities a powerful tool to override Alabama’s interests. The same structures designed to protect small states from national majorities are the structures protecting Alabama today.
Before cheering the demise of the filibuster, Alabama conservatives should ask themselves a simple question: Do we want a faster Senate, or do we want a Senate that protects our state? Do we want short-term partisan victories, or long-term leverage for Alabama? The answer should be clear.
The filibuster does not belong to one party; it belongs to the states. Ending it may feel like victory today, but it is likely a defeat for Alabama tomorrow.
Matthew McLain is an Alabama Young Republican and an accountant for a Fortune 500 company.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
