Overview: Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) recently made history by setting a new record for the longest Senate speech in US history, breaking the record held by former South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond. However, some have criticized Booker for not staging an actual filibuster during a critical moment when the Senate was considering a Republican stopgap funding bill that included physician reimbursement cuts. The author argues that Booker’s speech sought to make up for a missed opportunity by Democrats to stand in solidarity against the excesses of the Trump administration and send a signal to Democratic party supporters that they are willing to fight for the soul of the nation.
S.E. Williams
On Wednesday, April 2, the only Black male in the U.S. Senate, Democrat Cory Booker, who represents the state of New Jersey, found his bravery, took to the Senate floor and spoke, virtually nonstop, for 25 hours and 5 minutes.
Not only was this a herculean feat, he set the record for the longest Senate speech in U.S. history. He did so, by breaking the long standing record previously held by former, and now deceased, South Carolina Senator, Strom Thurmond.
Thurmond, a segregationist, boldly spewed hatred, discrimination and racist ideology on the floor of the U.S. Senate for 24 hours and 18 minutes in a filibuster attempt to block passage of the 1947 Civil Rights Act. But, the bill passed despite his efforts to derail it.
The 1947 Civil Rights Act was the first legislation focused on civil rights since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The 1947 legislation established several protections now at risk under the Trump Administration. They include the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice; the Attorney General’s ability to investigate and prosecute voting rights infringements; and it also established the Commission on Civil Rights. The 1947 bill led the way for future Civil Rights legislation including the heralded Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I understand how we each choose when, where and how, or if, to use our voice in service of a cause. We do so when we feel the time is right for us as an individual to do so, not when someone else has expectations of us.
To that extent, I applaud Booker. He stood and spoke for what he believes in; in support of the constituents he serves; and with hope for the nation he clearly loves. He did so with honor and conviction. As a result of his efforts, I imagine others will be inspired to take “right action” during these challenging times and do something similar in his/her own way. Maybe attend a council or board meeting, call a member of Congress, attend a demonstration, run for political office and so forth.
On the other hand, I question why Booker did not display this same courage, defy his political party boss, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and stage an actual filibuster at a pivotal moment when it really counted, like on March 17, 2025, for example.
On that day, although it was highly probable the Republicans’ stop gap funding bill might have passed anyway, a filibuster may have slowed the approval process. Many who opposed the bill believe the proposed physician reimbursement cuts will “worsen the physician workforce shortage, increase consolidation in the healthcare industry, close rural medical practices, while at the same time, driving up costs for seniors.”
“You should be angry. You must not be bitter. Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. It doesn’t do anything to the object of its displeasure. So use that anger. You write it. You paint it. You dance it. You march it. You vote it. You do everything about it. You talk it. Never stop talking it.”
Maya Angelou
Had he filibustered at that time, it had the potential to garner even more national attention because all eyes were on the Senate and whether or not the stop gap funding bill would pass or the government would shut down. It was an opportunity for the Democrats to stand in solidarity against the excesses of the Trump government and send a signal to Democratic party supporters that both houses of Congress had taken the gloves off and were willing to fight as hard as the Republicans for the soul of this nation.
But, that did not happen. Schumer acquiesced and most of the moderate/conservative wing of the Democratic Senate followed his lead. It wasn’t a matter of who blinked first. Schumer never even bothered to open his eyes and while the progressive members of the House of Representatives clamoured for a standoff, Schumer folded like a card. Due to Schumer’s failure to lead on this issue, many Democrats have called for him to step aside as Senate leader and are pushing for someone to challenge him when he’s up for reelection in 2028.
Recalling Thurman, he delivered an actual filibuster in 1947, even though he knew it was a lost cause because the legislation had bi-partisan support and was destined to pass. However, Thurman was among some of the last remaining Dixiecrats–Southern Democrats–in the Senate. Many of them would eventually leave the Democratic Party in 1948, in expressed opposition to the party’s position on Civil Rights.
Most applaud Booker’s effort, commend his delivery, have endless dialogue about what he ate and drank or didn’t eat or drink leading up to his talk last week as a way to manage his bodily functions during the 25+ hours stretch. Some have even admitted it was not a filibuster in the truest sense of its political definition. Yet, few have asked, ‘Hey, where was this guy when his speech had the potential to make an even bigger impact?”
When Democrats in the Senate had the opportunity to use the March 17 vote as leverage to push back against the aggressions of the Trump administration, they did not. When Democratic Senate leadership were gifted the opportunity to uplift and unite Democratic party members at a critical moment by going to the wall in support of party beliefs and against the wishes of a tyrant, Democratic senators whimpered in silence.
Some have argued that a shutdown would only have served to empower Trump and his puppeteer, Elon Musk, to move even more quickly to slash what they have defined as federal bureaucracy. Yet, we all know if Trump and Musk moved any faster than they already are in this regard, they’d be doing so at the speed of light.
Why are some people in elected positions of power that can make a difference–not being more vocal? Is it because of fear? Fear of what? I understand Trump has turned up the George Orwell 1984 “Big Brother” machine on us. He has already encouraged government workers to report even a whisper of DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) in their workplaces. Rather than fearing what will happen if we take a stand against Trump’s policies, we should fear what may happen if his agenda is not interrupted.
Being a person who came of age in the 1960’s, I know all too well this country’s penchant for “always killing those who resist that dates back to the beginning of the common era. This was when a Black man called Jesus, whether he existed in the physical or was/is strictly a metaphysical manifestation, came with a message that appealed to the oppressed masses suffering under Roman rule. We watched the killing of King and Malcolm X here in America. But we’ve also witnessed it in other places in the world.
It was a message that still resonates today. A message of peace and love; of caring for the least of these, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, caring for children, the elderly and the afflicted. He taught that we are all connected. His teachings were not aberrant. Every great religion, spiritual tradition offers a similar message.
America likes to hold itself not only above nature, but also above everyone else in the world. It is not. I’ll state again for the record that America suffers from schizophrenia–on the one hand it claims religious freedom. That promise is even written into the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And yet, on the other hand, America claims it is a Christian nation and yet it fails to live out the basic principles of Christianity.
And now we are being led by a madman who holds a bible upside down, can’t offer a single coherent quote from it, and who “stage prays” for the cameras whenever he is with a group of ministers and the opportunity presents itself. While at the same time, he authorizes actions in direct opposition to its fundamental principles.
Leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives (the People’s House) at least have a cohesive plan to resist his madness. It is a three-tiered approach focused on whatever they can do to resist in the people’s house; leveraging the courts; and activating the community. While it appears the Senate has succumbed to the good ole’ boys’ mantra of, “Let’s not rock the boat. I’m not willing to risk my financial support, my Congressional seat, my cushy job for the sake of the nation, for the sake of my constituents, not even for the sake of humanity.” And yet, elected positions were never intended to be lifetime jobs.
That is part of the reason why we are in the mess we are in today. Too many of those we elect to represent us are always bowing down, always compromising (which at times is warranted) but not at the expense of taking three steps backward after every battle that yielded the initial three steps forward.
Even as the demographics and political leanings of the nation changes, leaders will not give a progressive agenda–that was actually a democratic agenda before the nation allows Republicans to redefine it as extreme–an opportunity to succeed or fail. Instead, we elect people who tear down programs meant to level the playing field after 400 years of chattel slavery, Jim Crow, institutional and systemic racism. Systemic and institutional discrimination extends to all people of color in addition to members of the LGBTQ+ community, immigrants, the elderly, the differently abled and the poor.
When Senator Booker stood and spoke in an overdue attempt to show strength and resistance to Trump by members of the U.S. Senate, in essence he provided cover and a soft landing for Schumer and many of those who voted with Schumer and against the wishes of most Democrats on March 17. I say this because during Booker’s talk many of those same Democrats had an opportunity to participate in the marathon by asking questions of Booker to help him pass the time. It gave the illusion that they were all taking this historic stand together–pretty easy for them to do now that there was no legislation and nothing at risk.
These are difficult political days. Apparently too difficult for Schumer and many Senate Democrats to take a stand on the side of righteousness. Perhaps this is why Booker did not dare a filibuster on the day it might have made a difference–perhaps it was politically too difficult for him to do so. The Roman philosopher Seneca advised, “It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult.”
Of course, this is just my opinion. I’m keeping it real.