A complicated web of “gentlemen’s rules” and long-standing customs have long regulated the hallowed halls of the US Senate, but the smell of an impending legislative revolution has recently filled Washington. Senator John Kennedy has issued a challenge to his party that is both explosive and harsh, a calculated risk that may either end in the Republican Party being humiliated on national television or in a historic win for election integrity. The SAVE America Act is at the center of this tempest, and Kennedy is pleading with his colleagues to view it as a cause worth fighting for rather than just a campaign slogan. His idea is straightforward but radical: use the budget reconciliation procedure as a weapon to overcome decades of procedural gatekeeping and avoid the filibuster.
It is impossible to overestimate the political ramifications of this move. In a chamber where the sixty-vote barrier frequently serves as a tomb for conservative ideals, Republicans have long bemoaned the challenges of enacting significant electoral change. Kennedy is encouraging his party to adopt a brutal discipline that has, up until now, been more typical of their ideological foes by supporting the use of reconciliation rather than just tweaking at the edges of Senate procedure. He is pointing to the same legislative tools that Democrats used to push through the American Rescue Plan, implying that in today’s hyper-polarized political climate, the side that is prepared to follow every regulation in the book will ultimately shape the course of events.
However, there are several high-stakes challenges along the way, including the possibility of a disastrous backfire. The SAVE America Act must to make it through the arduous Byrd bath process in order to be successful. Every clause in a reconciliation measure is scrutinized by the Senate parliamentarian in this legislative process, which bears the name of the late Senator Robert Byrd. The rules pertaining to election integrity might be eliminated like dead weight if the parliamentarian, an unelected official whose decisions have the power to make or break a presidency’s agenda, determines that they do not directly and significantly affect the federal budget. Kennedy’s challenge makes Republicans face the possibility that they may come out of this process with a truncated measure and a tarnished image. However, the Louisiana senator appears to think that the danger of failing is far surpassed by the risk of coming seen as weak to a base that is becoming more and more demanding of action rather than words.
Kennedy’s push has a clear underlying message: the days of half-measures and courteous floor speeches are over. Republicans will send a clear and possibly irreversible message to their constituents if they back down now. It would indicate that the party opted for the security of tradition over the risk of conflict when the pressure was at its highest and the chance for significant change was close at hand. Kennedy is holding the match to the flame in the eyes of many, who view election integrity as the GOP’s ultimate litmus test. He is requesting that the party leadership determine whether they are prepared to rebuild the unwritten map of Senate power or if they are happy to be a permanent minority that abides by the rules.
The outcome would be revolutionary if the risk pays off. Beyond the immediate effects of the SAVE America Act itself, the Senate’s operations would be drastically changed if reconciliation were successfully used on such a prominent non-fiscal topic. For any party astute enough to phrase their social or political concerns in terms of the budget, it would essentially herald the end of the filibuster. It would demonstrate that the Senate is now a powerful motor for the will of the majority rather than a cooling saucer for contentious matters. This is the “nuclear option” of legislative strategy, a total war approach to policymaking that eliminates the possibility of the bipartisan agreement that used to characterize the upper house.
As they consider Kennedy’s demand, the Republican caucus is clearly tense. The institutionalists on one side worry that if these unwritten rules are broken, there would be a race to the bottom, with each successive majority using reconciliation to crush the opposition until the Senate and the House of Representatives are identical. The activists and firebrands on the opposing side contend that unilateral disarmament is a surefire way to bring about political extinction because the other side has already breached the rules. Kennedy is a solid member of the latter group, seeing the parliamentarian’s mysterious decisions as a challenge that must be overcome by whatever means necessary rather than as a barrier.
The nation’s attention is focused on the Capitol as the clock is ticking down to a possible budget confrontation. The SAVE America Act has evolved into a vehicle for a broader debate over the nature of power in the twenty-first century. Is Washington still governed by the “gentlemen’s rules” of the past, or has it turned into a battleground where only the most vicious people survive? Senator Kennedy’s challenge is a proclamation that the days of courteous dissent are past, not merely a recommendation for procedure. He is pressuring his peers to enter the fray and demonstrate that they are prepared for a battle that will probably define the rest of the parliamentary year.
Ultimately, more than just the fate of a single bill will depend on how this battle turns out. For the foreseeable future, it will define the Republican Party’s identity. They will have accomplished two goals if they continue and make it through the Byrd bath: they will have secured the laws they feel are essential for the republic and demonstrated their ability to use power just as effectively as their rivals. They run the risk of being humiliated in every primary and general election for years to come if they give down. Now that John Kennedy has shown the cards, it is up to the other members of the party to determine whether or not they are prepared to commit fully. The Senate’s power structure is always changing, and in contemporary Washington, the only thing riskier than applying every rule is the fear of doing so.