The Senate Was Built to Govern, Not to Hide

Guest Opinion by Perry Hooper, Jr.

When Ronald Reagan ran for President, he did not campaign on managing decline or respecting Washington precedent. He ran on restoring American strength, reviving economic growth, and reminding the country that government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. Reagan understood something modern Washington too often forgets. When the American people demand action, leadership does not hide behind process. Leadership delivers.

That same principle drove the Contract with America in 1994. Republicans did not ask voters for permission to study reform. They did not promise blue ribbon commissions or endless debate. They offered clear commitments, put them in writing, and forced Congress to act. The result was the first meaningful reform of the House of Representatives in decades. Welfare reform, budget discipline, and a restored sense that elections actually change outcomes all followed.

The lesson from Reagan and 1994 is simple and unavoidable. Governing majorities are expected to govern.

Yet today, the United States Senate has drifted far from that tradition. The modern Senate’s obsession with the 60 vote threshold is one of the clearest examples of how Washington drifts away from constitutional design and into procedural superstition.

Nowhere in the Constitution does the number 60 appear. The Framers were explicit when they wanted supermajorities. Treaties, veto overrides, constitutional amendments, and impeachment all require higher thresholds. In every one of those cases, the requirement is written plainly and deliberately. The Senate filibuster, and certainly a 60 vote cloture rule, is not among them.

So the first question any serious reformer should ask is simple. Who decided that routine legislation should require the same level of consensus as rewriting the Constitution.

The answer is not James Madison, not Alexander Hamilton, and not the architects of Article I. The 60 vote threshold is a relatively modern invention, born not of constitutional wisdom but of Senate inertia and political convenience. It evolved over time as a way for senators to avoid taking hard votes, to empower the minority without accountability, and to shield the institution from the consequences of elections.

That is not checks and balances. That is paralysis by procedure.

Supporters of the current system often argue that the 60-vote rule encourages consensus and bipartisan cooperation. In theory, that sounds noble. In practice, it has produced the opposite result. When the minority knows it can block everything, it has no incentive to negotiate. Obstruction becomes strategy. Delay becomes victory. Gridlock becomes a governing philosophy.

Meanwhile, the American people are not confused about what they want. They wanted the border secured. The President delivered. They wanted executive action where Congress refused to act, and they got it. But on every other major issue, health care reform, spending discipline, regulatory reform, national security, and energy independence, health care, the public knows the limits of executive authority. Those issues require congressional action.

And that is where the frustration boils over.

Voters are tired of being told that Washington’s hands are tied. They are tired of hearing excuses about precedent, process, and Senate tradition. They did not vote for tradition. They voted for results.

This is why the discussion around alternative thresholds, such as 55 votes to advance a bill , is not radical, reckless, or anti Senate. It is a recognition that a functioning republic must be able to act.

A 55 vote threshold would still require consensus beyond a bare majority. It would still protect minority voices. But it would restore a fundamental principle the Framers understood intuitively. Elections are supposed to matter. When voters choose a governing majority, that majority should be able to govern clearly, transparently, and with accountability.

The current 60 vote standard has done more than stall legislation. It has distorted political behavior. It has pushed real decision making out of Congress and into executive agencies, courts, and back room negotiations. It has rewarded cynicism and punished leadership. And it has trained senators to posture rather than persuade.

The deeper issue is not whether 60 is the right number or whether 55 might work better. The real issue is whether the Senate exists to solve national problems or to manage its own avoidance mechanisms.

Reexamining the filibuster threshold is not about weakening the Senate. It is about restoring it to its proper constitutional role. A deliberative body that debates vigorously, votes decisively, and accepts responsibility for the outcomes.

The American people have made their expectations clear. They want action. They want accountability. And they want a Congress that remembers why it exists.

That conversation is long overdue.

Perry O. Hooper Jr. is a longtime Alabama Republican figure, former Alabama Legislator and Montgomery businessman. He served as Co-Chair of “Alabama Trump Victory” in 2016, and served as an at-large delegate to the Republican National Convention. He is a noted civic leader in Montgomery with deep family roots in Alabama’s legal and political history.

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.