In this interesting?article from the American Prospect, Bruce Ackerman reveals how in 1957 Lyndon Johnson opposed an effort of Vice-President (and President of Senate) Richard Nixon to reform the filibuster rule:
It now takes 60 Senators (three-fifths) to end a filibuster, but for most of the 20th century, a full two-thirds majority was necessary. Worse yet, unanimous consent was required by Senate rules to change this. The two-thirds provision seemed cemented into the system beyond repair.
Until Richard Nixon came along. When the Senate opened for business in 1957, he took the chair as vice president and urged the chamber to rethink the very foundations of its rules. The Senate traditionally considered itself a continuing body, which automatically inherited its old rules without any formal action.
This was a mistake, Nixon said. Since one-third of its membership is renewed every two years, the Senate should explicitly vote on its rules when it organized itself at the beginning the session. If a simple majority wanted to reduce the two-thirds rule, it was free to do so.
Nixon’s ruling was a bombshell. If his view were accepted by the Senate, 51 Senators could impose a strong civil-rights bill on the South.
This put Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson in a tough spot. He was willing to join a broad effort for a weak civil-rights measure, but he was unprepared to sacrifice his Southern colleagues by campaigning against the filibuster. He refused to support Nixon’s pronouncement. Instead, he asked the Senate to table any vote on its rules and follow its traditional practice of simply inheriting the existing rule book in a passive fashion. When Johnson’s motion won the day, he frustrated Nixon’s effort to use the Senate presidency as an engine for filibuster reform.
Talk about your hidden side of everything.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
It’s really too bad Nixon let his bad side win out. He brought some interesting ideas to the political table.
He also proposed universal healthcare in 1974.
Not sure I see your point. Nothing in the Constitution mentions filibuster, except that both Houses make their own procedure rules. Nixon and LBJ saw things differently.
Filibuster, in my opinion, keeps one party from cramming legislation down the country’s throat. Too many politicians, media pundits, and even citizens feel that since a given party (either one) has a majority that it has a mandate to “fix” society. Wrong. All politicians should be following their oaths to uphold and defend the constitution, not pass legislation that is en vogue at the moment. Filibuster helps with that, unfortunately.
So when did it go from 67 votes to today’s 60 votes? The article starts to make it sound like Nixon was responsible for this, but then goes on to say he wanted it dropped to 51 votes, but he didn’t gain enough support.
@Henry
The filibuster itself is a parliamentary procedure. Organizations are free to come up with their own rules on how to use these procedures.
From the post:
He was willing to join a broad effort for a weak civil-rights measure, but he was unprepared to sacrifice his Southern colleagues by campaigning against the filibuster.
I’m inferring that Johnson’s Southern colleagues were against the civil rights law and were in the minority.
Henry: Unfortunately, the filibuster also helps a minority impose their will on the country by enforcing a harmful status quo, as we’ve been seeing repeatedly over the last several months.
Uh…I think we were four senators less in 1957…
The Senate is a fundamentally non-democratic body giving a disproportionate amount of power to citizens of small (by pop) states. The half million residents of WY are able to block the actions of the ~40M residents of CA. The filibuster just makes it worse.