Why Dems must end the filibuster - or cede permanent control of America to Republicans

[sharedvalues]

Ed Kilgore's piece on ending the filibuster:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/democrats-should-trust-democracy-and-kill-the-filibuster.html

It may be time to conclude that for Democrats tolerating (while fighting) Trump for another two years is vastly preferable to accepting the ever-more-entrenched minority rule his party has come to rely on for much of its power. If Trumpism means anything, it means a rearguard action to deny our people self-government on grounds that the country has lost its greatness and requires rule by a righteous remnant of “real” Americans composed of taxpaying Jesus-worshiping gun-toting patriarchs. Progressives have long quoted Paul Wellstone in identifying themselves as “the democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” That’s simply not consistent with a willingness to maintain the Senate filibuster. This needs to be a 2020 campaign issue.

He quotes Brian Beutler

What these senators mean is that for all the broad left’s justified alarm about the brittleness of our democracy, and the hardening of minority rule in America, 41 out of 100 senators, representing much less than 41 percent of the U.S. population, should be allowed to doom their ambitions. Even a Senate that could reliably pass legislation with 51 votes would still not be a majoritarian institution. The senators from the 25 smallest states would still have as much power as the senators from the 25 largest states, and because of how our population is sorted, the Senate would still allow a minority of the country, through their elected representatives, to hobble the progressive agenda….

Unless that changes, the primary will be less a contest to determine which ideas a unified Democratic government might enact than a grand but meaningless celebration of liberal empowerment. A laboratory simulation to determine where consensus among Democratic base voters lies, before that consensus gets dashed upon the shoals of Republican obstruction.

If we don't end the filibuster, we have no chance of getting major change enacted. No chance of fixing the problems caused by Trump. No chance of improving voting rights. In other words, without ending the filibuster we're engaged in "meaningless" debate about what we should do - but will never ever get done.


Tweet

Link to tweet

[marylandblue]

1. Filibuster is not an issue to run on, especially for President

Imagine we run on ending the filibuster, win the Presidency, but don't get the Senate back and Majority Leader McConnell say, okay, let's end the filibuster now, just like Democrats want to. Then we have no power at all in the Senate.

[sharedvalues]

2. We have to DO it though. End it. Maybe not run on it, but end it.

Also, we currently have no power at all in the Senate. If McConnell feels he needs to end the filibuster he will.
Remember, the TrumpCare bill failed by a simple majority, because McCain voted no.
The billionaire tax cut passed by a simple majority due to reconciliation.


The Republicans can pass all the bills they need by simple majorities using existing rules. The ONLY thing the filibuster does is restrain Democrats, because only Democrats want to actually pass laws and govern. We lose nothing by ending the filibuster.

Also, an issue to run on: Making DC and PR both states. We need to fix the Senate.

[marylandblue]

3. TrumpCare failed under reconciliation rules, which is limited to one bill per year.

We stopped the border wall using the filibuster during the last lame duck session until the new Congress.

[Panich52]

4. Filibuster itself isn't the problem. It's that its been

made too easy. There have been only 3 of them I can remember as they should be, 1 member holding the floor with non-stop speech, in the past decade.

It should be hard work.

[Midnight Writer]

7. Exactly. Return to pre-1970s rules. Then a filibuster was a delaying tactic, not a bill killer.

[JayhawkSD]

5. Elect 60 Democratic Senators. Problem solved. nt

[sharedvalues]

9. Yes! Would love this. Won't happen till 2032 if ever.

We must also make DC and PR states. DC residents need two senators.

[JayhawkSD]

11. One small problem with that.

I believe PR has repeatedly voted "no" on the issue of applying to become a state.

[sharedvalues]

12. DC votes 98% yes. Do that first

Then let PR vote on becoming a state.
I’ll bet you a dozen donuts that after the Trump Maria response they DESPERATELY want representation if they’re going to stay part of the US.

[dalton99a]

6. It's not your grandfather's Senate. Kill the filibuster and bring back democracy.

[sharedvalues]

10. +1

[MurrayDelph]

8. My Senator (and favorite non-declared candidate)

Jeff Merkley tried to implement a talking filibuster (a la Mr. Smith Goes to Washington), where if you want to filibuster something, you have to get up and talk (on point; no Green Eggs and Ham).

It was slapped down by Harry Reid, who chose to believe Mitch McConnell's promise to use the filibuster sparingly.

We all know how much a promise from McConnell is worth.