The legislative filibuster must stay

[Benjamin Frank]

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.

You must live in an alternative universe.

1.The filibuster encourages obstruction, not bipartisanship, especially from Republicans.

2.Why does the Senate inherently have to be different from the House?

3.Change not being radical and promoting stability in government may have been valid arguments 27 years ago when the Republicans first started abusing the filibuster, but it is not true now on issues ranging from global warming to immigration.

The filibuster is not neutral, it favors the status quo and it favors those, i.e Republicans, who are not serious about governance but who only want to obstruct, because most of the Republican hierarchy, the genuine wealthy and religious elites, benefit from the status quo.

They also benefit from showing that government doesn't work.

4.If the Democrats believe in their policies, they have no real reason to fear of Republicans taking back the Senate.  It is likely precisely due to Republican obstruction that Democrats lose control because they are unable to implement their agenda, and voters then blame the Democrats for 'doing nothing.'  Without the filibuster, likely the Democratic agenda will prove to be popular, especially the 'low hanging fruit' and they'll hold both Houses of Congress for a generation or so, as the Democrats held both Houses from 1954-1980.

Also, if the Democratic agenda does turn out to be unpopular and the Republicans take everything, say in 2024, why shouldn't the Republicans be able to implement their agenda, to the degree that they have one?

[Benjamin Frank]

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.

Why is it the Democrats' problem that the Republicans be able to implement their agenda? It should be as hard as possible for them, which the filibuster helps. And what policy would make Democrats so popular that it is worth removing the filibuster? The main thing people want right now is stimulus, which can be done by reconciliation. The only thing I can think of is a minimum wage increase, which states can do anyway.

It would also cost Democrats a lot of political capital to remove the filibuster since it would be seen as a power grab. Conversely, if Republicans are seen as obstructionists, that could tarnish their image.

The thing is that, policy-wise, Democrats have much more to gain from the abolition of the filibuster than Republicans do. Why do you think Mitch McConnell didn't abolish the filibuster when he was in the majority and is now fighting tooth and nail to preserve while in the minority? There are two main reason for this:

First, today's GOP has little agenda beyond confirming conservative justices (which they can already do with a simple majority since the filibuster was abolished on judicial nominations) and passing tax cuts (which they can do through reconciliation), so the filibuster isn't really problem for them.

Second, several items of the Democratic agenda would be very hard to roll back by a future Republican Congress. Take a hypothetical Democrat-established universal healthcare system, for example. Attempting to dismantle it would be the Obamacare repeal and replace debacle on steroids, a massive backlash would ensue. Rather, the GOP might be forced to do what the British Conservative Party did in the 1950s, which was accepting the welfare state created by Clement Attlee's Labour government (in spite of previously claiming that it would take "some sort of Gestapo" to function).

About the electoral consequences Democrats would face if they removed the filibuster, I have to say I disagree with you. Most people don't care or don't even know about the filibuster, so its abolition would take little political capital. Also, all evidence suggests Republicans do not get punished for being obstructionists, as was seen in 2010 and 2014.

It's not like Democrats have 55 seats and the filibuster is the only thing standing in Democrats' way of passing policy. They would have to have their entire caucus united to pass anything, which is never a guarantee. I do think Democrats would face consequences if Republicans hammer that Democrats are refusing to work with the other side. If Democrats lose their slim majority in 2022, they won't be able to do anything. I would not say that Republicans are immune to political consequences. There is a reason McConnell's favorability ratings are so low. In fact, obstructing additional stimulus is the only reason Democrats have the Senate in the first place.

It can also be argued, contrary to what you've argued, that if the Democrats eliminate the filibuster, that, with the Republicans now knowing that Democratic legislation might not be able to pass the Senate, that rather than simply obstructing, that at least some Republicans would now come to the table to offer ideas for consideration so as to have a say in new legislation.  There are, at present, probably seven or eight Republicans on any potential legislation (different Republicans on different legislation) who might be interested in advancing constructive ideas rather than just wanting to be in opposition.

Of course, some might argue that if you take these differing seven or eight Republicans on most issues and add it to the 50 Democrats, that you get to roughly breaking a filibuster anyway, and that might end up what Democrats have to hope for, but this from Clinton to Obama ignores group dynamics and the iron discipline of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has realized that by sticking together to obstruct they will gain more electorally even as individual Republican Senators might wish to advance constructive legislation by working with the Democrats.  I think there was a clear example of this on immigration reform when several Republican Senators, led by Marco Rubio, ended up opposing legislation they had initially sponsored.

The hope here, without the elimination of the filibuster, is that Republicans realize that blocking legislation for more than 20 years up to 2016 was a major contributor to the rise of Donald Trump and that at least enough Republican Senators now appreciate how dangerous their cynical game has been.  However, there certainly doesn't seem to be any indication Mitch McConnell cares, and if the Senate Republicans keep him as their leader, that would be an indication Republicans don't care as a whole either.

Also, outside of the major media outlets and some in the Democratic Party 'civility police' who seem to be in love with the concept of 'bipartisanship' I doubt the vast majority of the public pays much attention to whether popular legislation is passed with bipartisan agreement or whether it's just the Democrats.  I have no doubt the Republicans would rile up their base by arguing that no Republican voted for such legislation, but I doubt most voters would care.