I mean it's true that if you first postulate that Democrats won't do anything with power, then having a government with power is a bad thing because only Republicans will do anything with power.
The problem there is with the postulate, not the theorem.
How likely do you think it is that a 58-seat Republican majority will maintain the filibuster if doing so stymies their agenda? If the GOP continues with their currently patterns with regards to respecting democratic norms, it doesn't seem like keeping the filibuster in place today provides any protection in the future.
Yeah I found the anti filibuster rhetoric pretty shortsighted, even from a psc 101 perspective the point of the filibuster is so that minority parties can not be overrun by marginal populist parties. So even from the philosophical perspective of “it’s un Democratic therefore bad” that’s not even true, 51% is a very slim margin and isn’t even representative of the values of constituents. The referendum-style argument is equally bad because of similar reasons.
Simon - One important element that this is missing is that many reform advocates (myself included) are operating under the assumption that preserving the filibuster now will have little or no impact on McConnell's decision on whether to eliminate it in the future.
If there's one thing we know about McConnell it's that he has no problem doing what he perceives to be in his best interests - and then constructing a rationale or principle around that. This has been most clear in his comments about when SCOTUS nominees can be confirmed (the ever-evolving definition of the "McConnell rule"), but that's far from the only example.
McConnell didn't eliminate the legislative filibuster in '17 because he didn't think it was in his interests to do so. He could confirm judges, cut taxes, and repeal the ACA with a simple majority - and he wanted to be able to blame Democrats for the defeat of politically toxic bills coming over from the House.
But times have changed, the GOP has changed, and I don't have any confidence that his political calculation would remain the same in '25 if Trump wins, Republicans control the House, and McConnell has 50-59 seats in the Senate. And if that happens, he will have absolutely no problem constructing a rationale that Democrats will yell and scream about to absolutely no effect.
I also agree with the point Ezra made that you disagreed with (I'm actually quoted saying something on that in his big piece on it
The issue is that without fillibuster reform the dems can do very little when they have a trifecta, even if that gives more power to republicans long term
A good rule I think is to not give power to government that you wouldn't want your enemy to have.
You think that government putting limits on free speech is good? What if Trump is doing the limiting?
In fact, this is why we live in a democratic republic, NOT a democracy. Our government was created with different parts that are supposed to slow down democratic passions. This has become even more important given how powerful the federal government has become in our daily lives. And some things are basically put off limits all together (see Bill of Rights)
Thus big changes should require big majorities. If policy X is really that important, then it should have broad based support. If it doesn't, then some type of compromise will need to happen, or maybe nothing happens and that's ok too.
We need more of the art of persuasion and WAY less of I got 51% of the vote now I get to remake society.
Final side note, I can think of few things more damaging to the future of our republic that using that temporary power to make major one sided changes to maintain that power. Thus things like packing the supreme court, or adding states to change the balance of power would be HUGELY destabilizing.
I mean it's true that if you first postulate that Democrats won't do anything with power, then having a government with power is a bad thing because only Republicans will do anything with power.
The problem there is with the postulate, not the theorem.
How likely do you think it is that a 58-seat Republican majority will maintain the filibuster if doing so stymies their agenda? If the GOP continues with their currently patterns with regards to respecting democratic norms, it doesn't seem like keeping the filibuster in place today provides any protection in the future.
Yeah I found the anti filibuster rhetoric pretty shortsighted, even from a psc 101 perspective the point of the filibuster is so that minority parties can not be overrun by marginal populist parties. So even from the philosophical perspective of “it’s un Democratic therefore bad” that’s not even true, 51% is a very slim margin and isn’t even representative of the values of constituents. The referendum-style argument is equally bad because of similar reasons.
Simon - One important element that this is missing is that many reform advocates (myself included) are operating under the assumption that preserving the filibuster now will have little or no impact on McConnell's decision on whether to eliminate it in the future.
If there's one thing we know about McConnell it's that he has no problem doing what he perceives to be in his best interests - and then constructing a rationale or principle around that. This has been most clear in his comments about when SCOTUS nominees can be confirmed (the ever-evolving definition of the "McConnell rule"), but that's far from the only example.
McConnell didn't eliminate the legislative filibuster in '17 because he didn't think it was in his interests to do so. He could confirm judges, cut taxes, and repeal the ACA with a simple majority - and he wanted to be able to blame Democrats for the defeat of politically toxic bills coming over from the House.
But times have changed, the GOP has changed, and I don't have any confidence that his political calculation would remain the same in '25 if Trump wins, Republicans control the House, and McConnell has 50-59 seats in the Senate. And if that happens, he will have absolutely no problem constructing a rationale that Democrats will yell and scream about to absolutely no effect.
I also agree with the point Ezra made that you disagreed with (I'm actually quoted saying something on that in his big piece on it
https://www.vox.com/21424582/filibuster-joe-biden-2020-senate-democrats-abolish-trump) - but I'll expand on that point another time.
Thanks for diving into this (even while I disagree on this one) and for raising awareness of the absurd bias in our political institutions.
The issue is that without fillibuster reform the dems can do very little when they have a trifecta, even if that gives more power to republicans long term
A good rule I think is to not give power to government that you wouldn't want your enemy to have.
You think that government putting limits on free speech is good? What if Trump is doing the limiting?
In fact, this is why we live in a democratic republic, NOT a democracy. Our government was created with different parts that are supposed to slow down democratic passions. This has become even more important given how powerful the federal government has become in our daily lives. And some things are basically put off limits all together (see Bill of Rights)
Thus big changes should require big majorities. If policy X is really that important, then it should have broad based support. If it doesn't, then some type of compromise will need to happen, or maybe nothing happens and that's ok too.
We need more of the art of persuasion and WAY less of I got 51% of the vote now I get to remake society.
Final side note, I can think of few things more damaging to the future of our republic that using that temporary power to make major one sided changes to maintain that power. Thus things like packing the supreme court, or adding states to change the balance of power would be HUGELY destabilizing.