Are Other Democrats Ready to Abolish the Filibuster?

Thebate over eliminating the filibuster is heating up, with Democrats pushing for its abolition. However, the inclusion of Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema in this push has raised significant doubts about the likelihood of success. While some may argue that the filibuster is an essential safeguard against legislation overwhelmingly opposed by a minority, others see it as a relic of the past that is no longer necessary.

What is the Filibuster?

The filibuster, a procedural measure in the U.S. Senate, requires 60 votes to overcome. Its purpose is to allow a minority to block legislation they consider crucial to a meaningful consensus. This is particularly relevant for controversial bills where maintaining some level of bipartisan support can be crucial.

The Argument for Maintaining the Filibuster

There are valid arguments for keeping the filibuster. It promotes compromise, encourages minority input, and provides a check on hasty or ill-considered legislation. The process forces both sides to engage in dialogue and find common ground, fostering a more stable and enduring policy environment.

The Current Debate and Democratic Senators

However, the current drive to abolish the filibuster is structured around a razor-thin majority. At present, the Democrats are in a tie situation, relying on Vice President Kamala Harris to break any ties. This precarious balance has sparked intense debate and highlights the desperate nature of the situation.

Some might argue that completely eliminating the filibuster would allow a bare majority to pass laws unpopular with a significant portion of the population. Would it be wise for a party that suspects it might lose its majority in the House and Senate in 2022 to risk public backlash by passing such laws? The answer seems to be no, as even the most influential Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin, has communicated that he will not support any measures that would eliminate the filibuster.

Joe Biden's Role and Failed Veto Threat

President Joe Biden's stance on the filibuster has further complicated matters. His recent threat to backstab Republicans for a photo opportunity and his subsequent backing off of vetoing a bipartisan deal with Republicans showcased a lack of clear strategy. The renewed mention of the filibuster during this debacle only intensifies the belief that no meaningful moves will be made to change the system.

Senator Joe Manchin's steadfast opposition, combined with the tenuous majority, suggests that the elimination of the filibuster is highly unlikely. Manchin has already stated his intention to oppose any moves that would weaken the filibuster and has proposed a 55-vote compromise instead. This stance effectively seals the fate of any attempts to abolish the filibuster.

Lessons from Past Mistakes

Historically, Democrats have faced the consequences of tampering with established procedures. The most notable example is the attempt to change Supreme Court rules, which only returned to bite them when Republicans took power. Given this pattern, it is highly improbable that Democrats would repeat such a mistake again.

Ultimately, the elimination of the filibuster would be a risky move, especially with an impending loss of majorities in both houses. Any attempt to push through such a change without public support would likely result in a lengthy and contentious process, reminiscent of the backlash seen when Democrats sought to alter the rules governing the Supreme Court.

It is clear that the fate of the filibuster lies with Senator Joe Manchin's resistance. The upcoming elections in 2022 will ultimately determine the majority, and any change to the filibuster may be derailed by any losses that the Democrats face.

Conclusion

The filibuster is an essential tool for governance, promoting compromise and ensuring a stable policy landscape. While the current Democratic majority struggles to maintain a working majority, the steadfast opposition of key Senators like Joe Manchin means that the chances of eliminating the filibuster are slim. The focus should instead be on finding pragmatic compromises that can garner sufficient support.

As the political landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial to consider the long-term implications of changes to procedural rules. The lessons from past attempts to alter such rules should serve as a cautionary tale, reminding us of the importance of preserving checks and balances in our democratic system.