"We shouldn't kill the filibuster because we may need to use it in the future" is like

[Atticus]

"We shouldn't shoot THIS grizzly bear that's breaking through our door because there MAY be another one that we'll need to shoot."

[sop]

1. "We shouldn't kill the filibuster because we may need to use it in the future" also assumes

Republicans won't kill it the next time they hold a slim majority. Mitch McConnell has pretty much killed most Senate norms, recently bragging he wouldn't confirm Biden's SCOTUS nominees if given the opportunity.

[FBaggins]

2. Faulty logic

Especially with so much emphasis on the one word that you get wrong.

There is no “may” about needing the filibuster in the future. There will be a Republican President and Congress in the years to come.

Killing the filibuster means getting what we want now - at the price of losing it all (and worse) the next time they’re in charge

[Midnight Writer]

3. So you don't believe that a Republican Senate will kill the filibuster themselves?

[qazplm135]

6. they didn't last time

for the same fears.

They aren't trying to expand government, they are trying to shrink it.

But once the shackles are off, there's nothing to fear anymore to keep them in line. So they will pass extreme stuff, and revoke anything we pass, so you'd be yo-yoing for awhile.

[kentuck]

8. So if they killed popular legislation...?

The voters would kick them out in two years and put the Democrats back into power? Then the Democrats could pass a new, improved version of the filibustered legislation. Then, two years later, if the Republicans wanted to face the political consequences, they could kill it again? Sounds like the worst thing that would happen would be this cycle of gamesmanship?

[qazplm135]

11. I think too many of us think people vote based on policy

and policy alone.

Many don't. They vote on all sorts of things.
But here's a very plausible potential outcome:

You kill the filibuster in 2023 (because Manchin and Sinema aren't doing it so best case you get two Senators who will in 2022).
You pass a couple of things, maybe a public option, but you still have too many blue dogs in the House to go nuts.
The left is unsatisfied while the right is furious. You lose at least one chamber in 2024, probably the House, possibly both. I don't see Biden losing though.
Now you head into 2026 with divided government, nothing much gets done, but nothing bad happens either, divided government remains.

Now it's 2028. Dems try to win a third term in a row, which almost never happens. Republicans and conservatives are amped up about the idea of winning both chambers and the presidency with no filibuster. They pull it off in another close election.

Now, abortion, privatization in whole or part of medicare, social security, tax cuts for the rich, raising eligibility ages, all sorts of things are on the table. And yes, eventually, we will be back in charge again as our side gets revved up, and it will all eventually get reversed, but you have a yo yo effect of national policies that will be brutal.

The only way this is pain free is if, as you appear to believe, what we pass will be SO popular that it engenders a long Dem period of control. Maybe, but I'm skeptical.

[kentuck]

13. I do not believe it will be "pain free"...

It's sort of like, "Pay me now or pay me later".

If your policies are so unpopular that the majority of people do not agree with them, then perhaps they should not be "policies"? There are constitutional issues that would have to be settled in the Supreme Court. How would we feel about that?

[qazplm135]

17. there is a reason

why popular policies don't equate to holding power. First of all, just because something polls well in theory doesn't mean the reality is what people will vote for. You can cite public opinion polls all day long, but that doesn't equate to actually winning elections.


Second, many people do not vote on just issues, or they vote on only one issue. They vote on everything from abortion to LGBTQ issues to the height of a candidate to how they feel that morning.

Trump RAN on policies that polled below 50 percent in 2016, and guess what, he won and the Republicans did as well.

What constitutional issues are you talking about?

[FBaggins]

9. No

Trump insisted on it… yet it still didn’t happen.

[brush]

4. And if we pass infrastructure, voting rights and label the GOP...

the insurrectionist party 24/7 until the '22 elections, the benefit of the good jobs and defeat of vote suppression laws will let the electorate see which party is for the people and which favors the rich vote suppression.

The people don't give a shit about the filibuster, they just want results out of Washington. The republicans are the ones who want it. It's not in the Constitution. The Senate was meant to be a majority vote body just like the House. And the House works. Elections should have consequences. If you win you get to pass your policies.

[qazplm135]

5. Not really

The filibuster does good and bad things.

It keeps them from doing anything too crazy, but keeps us from doing good things.

Now, one can argue that the latter is more important than the former, but one cannot argue that the former isn't a real threat.

If you believe that passing our bills will lead to our long-term ascendancy then it makes sense.
If you believe that we will continue to yo-yo between the parties, then it makes less sense.

[Atticus]

7. With respect, I understand what you are saying, but it sounds an awful lot like the old

"keep our powder dry" argument. I think now is the time to use it and just may be our last opportunity to "pull the trigger".

[qazplm135]

10. It's not about powder

it's about the power.

Do we think our using the power (ESPECIALLY given we know not much progressive will get passed with Manchin even assuming he somehow votes for it) is worth knowing that at some point, they will get that power right back?

Do we really think they won't reverse the bills we've done?

Do we really think a progressive revolution will rise up and they will never get power again?

Do we not think they will do terrible things unshackled?

They have the same fear, that's why they didn't do it in 2017 when they absolutely could have and Trump was begging them to do it.

Again, you can argue it's worth it, but you can't argue it's not without serious risk.

[Atticus]

12. It's worth it. nt

[qazplm135]

16. not really compelling

care to expand, or do you take my argument that poorly?

[StarfishSaver]

15. This isn't a "keep our powder dry" question

There will be a time in the future where Dems will be in the minority and not having the filibuster will be a problem.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of it. But we need to be clear on the short- and long-term consequences.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Not an accurate metaphor, but I get your point

A more accurate metaphor would be "I'm hesitant to shoot this grizzly bear who's breaking down the door because he may be the only thing that can kill the hungry tigers who I see coming up the road for me.

There was a time when Democrats rightly fought like hell to keep the filibuster in place because that was the only thing they had to try to stop some of Bush's right wing judges (they even tried to filibuster Roberts and Alito, but not enough Dems got on board). Most people forget that.

That said, at this point, the situation is so dire, we probably don't have much choice. But it's not an easy call and we need to understand the long-term ramifications.

[GulfCoast66]

18. I'm conflicted.

The famous McCain thumbs down was during reconciliation. All they needed was 51. Without the filibuster the ACA would be dead. We have a tie in the Senate and a slim majority in the House.

Not sure it’s a great idea. And it’s not going to happen anyway.