Rand Paul and the Self-Made Media Event

Senate rules require that any journalist or media personality discussing the talking filibuster must invoke the 1939 Frank Capra film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, because that film serves as a shorthand for the romance and inherent Americanness of the political tactic. The film offers an ideal type of a"good" filibuster, where one man and his ideals are able to use the senator's privilege of unlimited debate to change the country for the better. The "bad" filibuster, which is now virtually practice on matters of importance allows a minority of Senators to prevent consideration of bills or nominations without putting their ideals on display or threatening embarrassing bladder or excretory problems.

Senator Rand Paul made news last week with a "good" filibuster, holding the Senate floor for nearly 13 hours in an (ultimately successful) attempt to get a straight answer from the Obama administration about how it interprets its power to use drone strikes on U.S. citizens within the country. Since Paul received a ton of media attention -- in what was regarded in some commentary as an attempt to establish his libertarian credentials for to the 2016 cycle -- why don't we see Senators do this more often?

For one thing, an essentially solo effort like Senator Paul's likely means not only a departure from the majority being obstructed, but also from the broader minority. We might expect senators to take such risks to comity or to their status within the body over issues about which they were especially passionate or saw a great political upside to championing.

How about, then, the routine filibusters that have wide support among the minority? Why do these senators prefer to block legislation and nominees without the media attention that might come with a talking filibuster? One possibility is that they would prefer to "quickly" delay or block some activity so that the Senate can get on to its other business. With the routine blockage of meaningful Senate activity, though, it's hard to believe that a properly functioning Senate is a major consideration. Another possibility, often raised by opponents of silent filibusters is that the obstructors do not want media attention focused on their efforts.

With cameras in the Senate chamber, along with the proliferation of cable news and of online news access and commentary, we might expect now more than ever that senators will need to see a lot of upside in order to engage in a talking filibuster. That perceived upside likely explains Senator Paul's actions last week.