With the U.S. Senate’s rule that debate can end only if at least 60 of the 100 senators agree, the Senate rightly can be seen as a political body even more dysfunctional than the U.S. House of Representatives. That indefinite extension of debate, and indefinite postponement of a bill’s adoption, is called a filibuster. Its classical form is no different from the example in the 1939 movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” In that movie, Jimmy Stewart’s character spoke on the Senate floor for 24 hours.

Last week, Americans caught a glimpse of the grand affair that filibusters can and should be. Opposing the confirmation of John Brennan as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) railed against the potential use of drone strikes to kill American citizens on American soil. Since then, commentators have speculated that Republicans can look to Paul for leadership or that talking filibusters will become more common.

Until recently, this “talking filibuster” was the primary kind of filibuster. In recent years, however, senators have accomplished filibusters by placing “secret holds” on bills and nominations and by merely threatening a filibuster. This has stalled the Senate’s proceedings and, in response, many people have called for reform of the Senate’s filibuster rules. Most recently, the Senate considered and adopted a package of rules changes in January.

One change is that senators will no longer be able to filibuster motions to bring bills to the Senate floor. Both Democrats and Republicans will be guaranteed the ability to offer two amendments to bills. (Curious readers will examine Senate Resolutions five, 15 and 16.)

The hope with these reforms is that the Senate now will be able to consider — and pass — more bills. The day the Senate considered these reforms Iowa’s Sen. Tom Harkin delivered a speech in which he decried the procedural paralysis effected by the filibuster. “The notion that 60 votes are required to pass any measure or confirm any nominee is not in the Constitution and until recently would have been considered a ludicrous idea, flying in the face of any definition of government by democracy,” he said.

Paul’s filibuster was a good thing. Debate on a bill that might become law or a resolution that might confirm a cabinet officer should be played through until there is nothing left to say, until there is no issue left untouched. Debate is a good thing, not a bad one. It is vital to the political process. And since the United States is a representative republic, where senators, representatives, president and all other civil officers are accountable to the people, those debates should occur in a place where the public can view them — in the filibuster’s case, on the Senate floor rather than in the secrecy of smoke-filled rooms.

It is likely that senators will continue to consider filibuster reforms. As they do, and as other Americans weigh in on the subject, we should all remember that speech is good for the political process. After all, it is one of five freedoms protected by the First Amendment. Unlike procedural tricks, talking filibusters require senators to make good on their threat to filibuster and to articulate their thoughts. Those two things can only improve political discourse.