Filibuster. Filibuster. It’s a fun word, isn’t it? J.K. Rowling thought so when she named a fictional brand of magical fireworks after it. It sounds so silly and happy-go-lucky. What isn’t funny is the fact that a filibuster is even more idiotic than it sounds. Chronically aimless and generally futile, filibusters do little but waste time, something the governing bodies they delay are quite good at already. While this time-suck can serve a purpose, such as preventing or delaying the passage of a bill, the filibuster as it currently stands allows for far too much abuse.  

In typical operations for the U.S. Senate, filibusters occur rarely. But in just the past few months, the Senate has seen its second and third longest filibusters in history, falling just behind Strom Thurmond’s infamous 24-hour chat-o-thon against the 1957 Civil Rights Act. The constant, futile attention-grabbing that these filibusters entail is not only a symbol of the current government’s dysfunction, but a reminder that our current legislative system enables that dysfunction to go far beyond the realm of acceptability.

The term “filibuster” actually applies to any attempt to extend debate in order to prevent the passage of a bill. But all three of the filibusters garnering media attention this year, as well as a fourth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last December, have been “talking filibusters,” in which the filibuster-er takes the stand with the intent to stay there until he or she cannot continue (both Thurmond and Rand Paul, whose anti-drone filibuster made headlines earlier this year, eventually succumbed to the will of their bladders before that of the senate) or the speaker runs out of time due to a session or other deadline, as Texas State Senator Wendy Davis did in June in protest of an anti-abortion bill.

While filibusters often do serve a purpose, as Davis’ did, Ted Cruz tried the nation’s patience with a bluff filibuster on Sept. 25-26, in which he talked for 21 hours consecutively about Obamacare, Star Wars, Obamacare, Dr. Seuss, Obamacare, the World Wrestling Federation and Obamacare, only to eventually vote for the measure he had spent the bulk of a day filibustering, which passed 100-0. The bluff filibuster has happened before –– McConnell’s December speech was actually a filibuster of a bill he himself authored to raise the debt ceiling (It’s a long story, but I encourage you to look it up). McConnell’s move was a result of a political error, but Cruz’s was very deliberate, which makes it all the more infuriating. Unlike Davis and many respectable filibuster-ers before her, Cruz did not even attempt to prevent the bill from passing. By all appearances, he filibustered the bill for the sole purpose of bugging every congressperson and reporter so much that had to pay attention to him.  Woe unto the unfortunates who had to transcribe the whole thing.

Cruz did gain one advantage from his filibuster: national attention. His marathon BS session has pundits and politicos alike buzzing about his viability in the 2016 presidential elections. Not bad for a freshman senator whose greatest achievement so far is spending a day comparing the current president to Hitler and Darth Vader. But I’m tempted to say that it takes a little more than pop-culture knowledge to effectively govern.

Filibusters have a place in government –– they allow holders of minority viewpoints to make themselves heard, as Paul, Davis and even Thurmond did. But the kind of political grandstanding Cruz engaged in is a waste of Congress’s time and of the taxpayer dollars that Cruz seemed so intent on conserving.