Republicans Should Support Filibuster Reform

The filibuster isn’t a constitutional creation.

The filibuster is a creature of the swamp.

In its current form, the filibuster was created in the 1970s. As a matter of principle, anything created in the 1970s should probably be killed, including the Department of Education and my cousin Chuck.

Prior to the 1970s, the filibuster existed as a “talking filibuster” whereby a Senator had to literally speak on the floor of the Senate to stall the will of the majority, but the longest filibuster was 24 hours so it wasn’t a very effective obstruction tactic hence why it was rarely done whereas today just the threat of a filibuster effectively kills a bill.

The filibuster was created in its current form, I’d argue because Democrats wanted to maintain party unity. Democrats had control of the U.S. Senate from 1955 to 1997. You see, during the 1960s Democrats had fractured over Civil Rights so by increasing the power of the filibuster Democrats could say to black voters, “Shucks! We’d really like to help you there, but unfortunately, we now need 60 votes to make it happen so we have no choice but to focus on other issues. Peace!” The point of the filibuster therefore was to INCREASE political polarization, i.e. increase unity among Democrats.

Democrats liked the filibuster when it helped them maintain power, but now that the American population has become more urbanized/coastalized it gives rural states even more disproportionate power in the Senate, which now hurts Democrats.

Politicians being politicians, Senate Republicans of course want to keep the filibuster as it is because it basically means it’ll be impossible for Democrats to pass more than one bill a year (reconciliation) without their approval since the chances of Republicans having less than 40 seats in the Senate is close to 0.

As a conservative though I think we should reform the filibuster because the filibuster has been one of the greatest culprits in creating a ballooning federal government where the only legislation that can get passed is that which is stuffed with pork and is voted on before any Senator even had a chance to read it so as to have “plausible deniability” and where the president is effectively extorted into signing the omnibus bill to avoid a government shutdown.

In addition, the filibuster has clogged the legislative pipeline too much, therefore, leading Democratic and Republican presidents to increasingly go around the Senate, and therefore the U.S. Constitution, to enact their agenda.

Republicans like David Harsanyi acknowledge some of my concerns but think, “conservatives would be better off living with what they have now,” i.e. a slow creep toward socialism is better than a sprint toward socialism.

I think we owe the future more than that.

His complacency with the status quo is indicative of a psychologically “conservative” person, but I think for those of us who are fed up with the destruction of the American middle class, fed up with the deterioration of the family unit, and fed up with the draining of the American innovative spirit than “conservative” must be synonymous with courage.

Most of us don’t have the luxury nor the stomach to sit back in an armchair and watch idly by as America slowly kills itself.

"The most perfect political community is one in which the middle class is in control, and outnumbers both of the other classes."

Isn’t it better to fight for freedom, even if we may lose than to passively wait for our chains?

David Harsanyi’s best point though is that removing the filibuster is just “one flank” of the progressive agenda,

“… along with shelving the Electoral College, packing the courts, and attacking equal representation in the Senate — of a broader progressive project to create a more direct federal democracy. Many legislative agenda items that Democrats now support — most consequentially, the takeover of state elections through the “For the People Act” — are meant to subvert federalism and subvert election safeguards.”

This is why I don’t believe in completely removing the filibuster. I just believe in nuking certain aspects of it, as Republicans have done in the past as it’s pertained to judicial appointments, which has thus far worked out in America’s favor.

The best chance we have at reforming the filibuster is with a Senate Democratic majority. All it would take is one or two Republican Senators crossing over. In exchange for their votes, these Republicans could stipulate,

"We will vote to amend the filibuster if it takes effect after the next general election (thus giving Republicans an opportunity to benefit more from it) and if we let the 60 filibuster rule continue to apply for admitting states and packing the courts."

READ FULL @ https://www.anthonygalli.com/