PC and WI: Fillibuster Reform in 1957

I was checking out Caro's LBJ bio Master of the Senate earlier today, and he actually gave a pretty thought provoking WI in January 1957 -- VP Nixon, it seems, had a manuever wherein the Senate rules of the previous congresses are not adopted in whole, yadda yadda, and the filibuster is effectively abolished!

What stopped it OTL was LBJ himself, who as majority leader, had the automatic perogative to be called on when the motion on the rules was proposed and tabled it. Had not LBL done so, says Caro -- or, by extension, if LBJ was not Majority Leader* -- then the Southern Democrats would have only one more blocking mechanism remaining, which essentially boiled down to debating all the rules of the Senate forever (way more irrevocably crippling than your run of the mill filibuster).

So what do you guys think? If LBJ hadn't have stopped them at the start, did the filibuster have a shot of being eliminated in 1957? And if so, how might things have changed if they'd succeeded? Could, for example, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 had real teeth?

*say, if one more Republican had won in 1956
 
Last edited:
No. The Southern Democrats will debate every single rule of the Senate. This could majorly fuck up the Senate, and Eisenhower will blink before Russell ever would. Russell himself admitted that only LBJ could defeat the Southerners, but in this scenario he's on their side. Civil rights legislation often didn't even get a majority vote. It often failed in the early 40s, IIRC. Especially with LBJ.
 
If he's Majority Leader, there is a clear interest in readopting rules to move the previous question. It enhances his power as majority leader immensely.
 
Russell himself admitted that only LBJ could defeat the Southerners, but in this scenario he's on their side. Civil rights legislation often didn't even get a majority vote. It often failed in the early 40s, IIRC. Especially with LBJ.

Well, strictly speaking I never stipulated LBJ was on Russell's side TTL; he was, according to Caro, always a CR supporter at heart, even when he blocked progress to further his presidential ambitions by mollifying southerners.

But ITTL, he's only Minority Leader.* Russell and the his crew aren't just asking LBJ to help them block Civil Rights -- they'd actually need him to enforce party discipline for the express purpose of shutting down the Senate. In that kind of scenario, I can see Johnson thinking "If I give my base what they're asking for here, than I'll be the guy who shut down the government, and my chances of being elected President are toast." And if Russell's gang is absolutely insistent, and force him into a truly no-win situation guaranteed to destroy his hopes in 1960, then I'll bet Johnson would just end up saying "Screw it then, I'll go with my conscience". And then you've only got 20 votes for fillibustering all the rules.

Of course, Russell's no idiot, so I don't think it'd come to that -- most likely some kind of compromise, but one more favorable to Civil Rights than OTL.

EDIT ADD NOTE: *I just realized this is only one of the possibilities presented by the OP -- the rest of the paragraph should still be accurate though...
 
Last edited:
There was no power as Majority Leader until LBJ. By relying on the support of the Southerners, who were committee chairs, he obtained power from each one, quid pro quo. And so when the committee chairs gave him some power, he used it to get more. By reforming the filibuster, he loses the support of the Southerners (read: Russell). And he can't become President without the South backing him.

Johnson will not allow this to happen by any way, and his parlimentary prowess makes his Minority Leader position not an obstacle to defeating filibuster reform. As a congressional aide, he defeated VP Jack Garner in a matter concerning Texas. Running around Ike and Dick and Knowland is nothing in comparison.
 
So what do you guys think? If LBJ hadn't have stopped them at the start, did the filibuster have a shot of being eliminated in 1957?

No.

It's been a few years since I read the book, but I seem to recall Caro implying that the major obstacle was simple partisanship; the majority leader has to ask the senate president to ask the senate parliamentarian about changing standing orders... And, as you mention, not only is the majority leader a Democrat, the senate president is a Republican, and they're both running for POTUS (or are about to). Also seeking the White House is the GOP minority leader, William Knowland.

No. The Southern Democrats will debate every single rule of the Senate.

Yes. This is the actual 'nuclear' in 'nuclear option' that's still spoken of today.

Legislative government shutdown in order to stop reform.

Russell and the his crew aren't just asking LBJ to help them block Civil Rights -- they'd actually need him to enforce party discipline for the express purpose of shutting down the Senate. In that kind of scenario

John, there is no "that kind of scenario" in the late fifties.

Even if LBJ went nuts and decided to acquiesce to the damnyankees (despite the fact he needed his Southern colleagues' support for the nomination in '60, as Plumber explained), this is the old filibuster we're talking about, and more importantly, it's the old method of assembling a cloture vote.

The Dixiecrats and the GOP Right (cough, Knowland turning against Nixon?) easily have 33 votes against the unseemly actions of that incompetent bounder Dick Nixon.

Also, too, Americans at large wouldn't understand the significance of what was happening, they'd just think it was a legislative clusterf@#k over nothing. Thank you, Mr Smith Goes To Washington.

(I must mention this: I once began a TL predicated on the idea that a successful liberal filibuster of Taft/Hartley in 1947 would make the GOP pull the trigger on abolishing the filibuster the next time they entered a congressional term with control of the senate and White House. That's because the Republicans were more tribal than the Democrats at that point when it came to purely partisan legislative action; as it was, this postwar GOP discipline was never threatened by a filibuster, so the maintenance of the 'unlimited debate' standing order was a crossparty ideological thing, not a partyline thing. That's why filibuster reform didn't happen until Byrd and Mansfield decided it had to happen after Nixon took the White House and threw the whole political ballgame open.)
 
I 've actually got an endgame of this standoff in my mind, complete with how LBJ sells it to the Southern Dems. The central conceit: OTL, LBJ talked the Dixiecrats into letting a watered down Civil Rights Act passed, despite having the power to kill it with the filibuster; TTL, he talks them into saving the filibuster by showing a willingness to negotiate with the Nixon led Republicans* and let a watered down bill pass. In other words, TTL, they'd have a lot less leverage.

*LBJ would be telling Russell something like "We give them a face-saving option, and Dicky's grip on them will fold like a blanket, and we'll have the numbers to save the fillibuster and the South."
 
Top