Scrapping The Filibuster Would Be A Slam Dunk Political Win For Democrats
Don't believe the skeptics: there is little downside to ridding the Senate of the filibuster
It is not usually my wont to argue with the uber-conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board. Life is too short.
However, I am going to make an exception today after reading an editorial this morning that argues if Democrats "blow up the Senate legislative filibuster” it “won’t be the political winner the party imagines.”
This is incorrect.
Scrapping the filibuster would be a no doubt about it, slam dunk political winner and don’t believe anyone who says otherwise.
The Journal argues that Democrat are refusing Mitch McConnell’s demands to not do away with the filibuster, in return for a power sharing deal in the now evenly divided Senate, because they want to keep open the option of “trying to ram through every Democratic priority from a public ObamaCare option to D.C. statehood.”
The editorial board warns that such “radical” actions “could sacrifice the party’s most vulnerable members, only to set up the GOP in 2024 to reform entitlements or pass tort reform with a bare majority.”
This has things precisely backwards. Getting rid of the filibuster would allow Democrats to pass legislation that Americans want. It would make possible the passage of a COVID-relief bill that would give every American an additional $1,400 and provide a major boost to the economy. Without the filibuster Democrats could implement a $15 minimum wage; invest billions of dollars in job creation and infrastructure spending; create a public health care option; make Obamacare subsidies more generous; give Americans paid family and medical leave; raise Social Security benefits; create a path for citizenship for undocumented immigrants; tackle climate change; raise taxes on rich people; strengthen gun laws, or even legalize marijuana. All of these measures have one thing in common - they are broadly popular.
More important, many of these steps would have a tangible impact on people’s lives - unlike scrapping the filibuster, which is the kind of procedural reform that few Americans pay attention to or even notice. Sure, Republicans in 2022 could run on attacking Democrats for allowing the Senate to pass legislation that has the support of a majority of senators. But Democrats could run on giving every American an extra $1,400 dollars, lowering their health care costs, and “hey, did we mention that the economy is doing great.” Which side do you think wins that political argument?
Americans want results from Congress, not gridlock and it stands to reason that they will reward the party that gives them results rather than the one that tries to stand in the way. And the faster Americans see those results the better. Obamacare provides the perfect example of this. When it was first passed in 2010 it led to a backlash in the midterm elections that year. But by the time voters began to see the benefits of the legislation, the political impact of the issue was completely reversed. In 2018, the electorate punished Republicans for wanting to take away their new-found health care benefits. The lesson here is clear: do stuff, ensure Americans get that stuff, win reelection, do more stuff … well you get the idea.
The counter to this argument is that when Republicans get back in power they can use a simple majority to pass conservative legislation of their own. This would be a serious issue if Republicans actually cared about doing things. Generally they don’t, unless it involves cutting taxes or stocking the federal courts with conservative jurists (both of which, by the way, can be achieved now with a simple majority). Even when Republicans controlled the House and Senate they couldn’t repeal Obamacare, which had been a GOP rallying cry for seven years. It’s adorable that the Journal thinks Republicans would use a simple Senate majority in 2024 to pass entitlement reform, but if you believe that I have a bridge down the street that might interest you.
Of course, the Democrats have a means of ensuring they maintain control of the Senate for the foreseeable future - grant statehood to Washington DC and Puerto Rico and add likely four new Democratic seats to the chamber. Republican will complain, but so what? Voters aren’t going to care and even if they do, Democrats will likely still maintain control.
In fact, scrapping the filibuster is such a no-brainer the better question is why the hell aren’t Democrats doing it? For that we can thank filibuster-skeptics like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. It says a lot about how Democrats wield power (or more accurately fail to) that this wasn’t their first order of business on Wednesday. But all in good time, though I imagine Democrats will eventually reform the filibuster rather than do away with it altogether. Still, when Democrats take this step, make no mistake, it will be a political winner.
If Democrats get rid of the filibuster, then perhaps they can also pass legislation to reform re-districting as well. May then we wouldn't have a minority of Americans being a quasi-majority!
Pretty much sure to be the case that what the WSJ hates is just the thing to do and pronto!