The legislative filibuster must stay

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

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 Perro Sanxe wot won it]

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.

The difference between having the filibuster and not having it is the difference between passing a small part of your agenda and passing a large part of your agenda. Yes, with their razor-thin majorities, Democrats won’t be able to pass everything they want, even without the filibuster. The point is, getting rid of it would help a lot.

You say Democrats have to compromise to keep Congress in 2022. I don’t know why Democrats need to be so careful about appearing bipartisan and willing to work with the other side of the aisle when the other side of the aisle has made it clear, time and time again, that it is not willing to cooperate with them in any way, shape or form. And, as I’ve already pointed out, it has done so in the past without facing any significant punishment from the voters. Of course they aren’t immune to political consequences, but they did not lose the Senate for obstructing stimulus, they had a done deal on it with the Democrats. The main problem for them in Georgia was, among others, that the Democrats capitalized on Donald Trump’s sudden refusal to agree to the negotiated package and demand for 2,000$ checks from Senate Republicans, a key Democratic proposal thrust into the spotlight by the president’s move.

And even in case you are right and Democrats do face some sort of backlash in the midterms for lack of compromise with the other side (which I reiterate, Democrats have offered but Republicans have rejected), my counterpoint is that they are going to most likely lose at least the House whatever they do or don’t do, so they might as well ram through a filibuster-free Senate everything they can during the next two years.