This article also suggests how to get Mitch to at least not care if the filibuster goes the way of the do-do. If you get bi-partisan legislation passed--doesn't really matter what vehicle you use so long as Mitch loses control of his Caucus--he (and hence Fox) won't care if the filibuster stays or goes.
"current rules already allow majority vote on Congressional Review Act deregulatory measures and on tax cuts (via reconciliation), so throw in judges and he’s fine."
This is an important point about the asymmetry of the parties. If you think about the traditional three legs of the Republican stool - business, social cons, and national defense - each of them have gotten their own carve out from the 60-vote rule. Business through CRA and reconciliation, social cons via the judicial noms, and the defense appropriation which is always "must pass" 95-2 votes and never subject to serious cloture challenges.
Here is the article I want to see. Explain why Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have taken their position on the filibuster. This article instead bemoans how the witless and unimaginative Dem moderates cannot perceive their true interest.
Mind you, I find your arguments persuasive, clearly Manchin and Sinema do not. I'd like to know their thinking, presuming they are smart people who have thought this through.
A little aside - but why not say "yes" to the 10 Republican counteroffer? Go ahead and see if you can pass it that way. I suspect they may struggle as Republicans like to "say" they'll work with Dems, but then don't do it. So do it. Pass it.
Then, if the Dems want to do more - ie. unemployment, state and local, etc. - then do that next. And if the Republicans won't go along, then use reconciliation. Dems get their big package, and Biden gets to say he worked with Republicans to pass bipartisan legislation where he could. Sure it's cynical, sure it's in bad faith. But so what? That's all the Republicans are doing.
I confess I got bored reading this not because I disagree but because of course I fully agree and so what? It's just an empty calorie argument. No one on our side really mounts a defense of the filibuster (except for Bill Scher, I guess), but it just doesn't matter because the political forces -- for whatever reason -- aren't arrayed in favor.
The problem isn't that you can't convince Joe Manchin. The problem is that you *have* to convince Joe Manchin.(*) We couldn't figure out how to beat Collins in Maine; we picked a bad candidate in North Carolina; we didn't do our best to defend Bill Nelson in Florida in 2018. Etc.
Yes I know the map is stacked against Democrats in the Senate but just a few years ago (in 2009) we had 60 votes (ok, briefly) which is far more than the Republicans have ever had. Has the world changed so markedly that we can't figure out how to get 55? And if we get 55 then we don't have to worry about moderates like Manchin and Synema acting against what we think are their interests.
So figure out how to win a few more Senate seats (and please, no fantasies about DC and Puerto Rico for now) and then let's move to kill the filibuster. Until then, just use the tools we have at hand.
(*) And I will say nothing bad about Manchin. It's because of his miraculous ability to survive in West Virginia that McConnell is not Senate Majority Leader. Thank you, Joe!
The trend line in Texas is good for Dems. I wouldn't be surprised if it votes Democrat for President in 2028, even if not in 2024. Just two years ago Beto came within 2.5 points of winning the Senate race. Could Beto (or a "Beto") beat Cruz in 2024? Why not? And I suspect that Senator would be for killing the filibuster.
To some extent I agree with you, dems should obviously just try to win as many seats as possible. But given the skew of the senate, getting 55 senators as you say is definitely no certain way to get rid of the filibuster, given those 5 additional dems are going to likely be very Sinema/Tester/Manchin-esque.
I'm happy to accept gifts from the Republicans. Since the map is stacked against the Democrats, we have to perform better than they do. We really have to figure out how to up our game. Whether it's a reasonable standard, it's the kind of thing we need to do to get a substantial enough majority to make the other changes we want to implement.
Isn't it true that the only Senate rule that ultimately matters in the rule of 51 votes? Yes there are written rules of procedure that provide for thing like "cloture" but those rules only exist, and are followed in a given case, at the pleasure of 51 senators. Any time 51 senators actually want to pass any bill they can, regardless of what the usual rules say. This is another case where the more time that's spent talking about procedure the less time is spent talking about why a senator is for or against a particular substantive result, when in fact there's very little defensible ground between procedure and substance. That game only works if enough people agree to play it.
I don’t think moderates fear leftist legislation passing. I think they (I) tend to be more risk averse, and are more keenly aware of the damage a Republican trifecta could do. I think there’s a good chance we’ll see a GOP trifecta in 2024. Will four (or just two) years of legislation have been worth it?
Matty has convinced me over the years that doing nothing is riskier than doing something, so I do support abolishing the filibuster. There appears to be a consensus (possibly wrong) that the filibuster hurts Democrats more than it hurts Republicans. I disagree McConnell is acting out of any principal. He said in 2017 that without the filibuster, cap n trade would have passed. Blocking legislation is more important to him than passing it.
He also gave a semi-hysterical warning on the Senate floor that he would grind Senate business to a halt if Democrats ended the filibuster. If McConnell fears something that much, we should definitely, definitely do it.
I think the argument goes "GOP trifecta with no filibuster will either force them to moderate or they will enact unpopular policies that will allow Dems to take power back." The sort of Ezra Klein "real ammunition" kind of thing.
What would you think of the idea of splitting the Coronavirus relief package in two--the part that the Republican 10 would support, and the rest. That way, Biden could show bipartisanship by giving the 10 something they could vote for that would pass. Then, on the rest, which the GOP wouldn't support, Dems could just pass it through reconciliation. That way they'd get to have their bipartisanship cake and eat it too. I suppose they'd need to make sure that the bill the GOP 10 would vote for didn't include poison pill that restrict the later reconciliation bill. What are the drawbacks to that approach?
I guess I don’t think the goal is really to “show bipartisanship” as it is there’s stuff they’d like to do that can’t be done through reconciliation and they think they can get Republicans to vote for it. (OK—I’m sure Biden on a personal level would love bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship—I just mean it isn’t the goal of their legislative strategy). They don’t want to sever things that Republicans don’t want that can’t go through reconciliation because then they just aren’t getting done. I’m extremely skeptical we’re getting a bipartisan bill that is (1) >$999bn (2) has anything in it other than checks and pandemic related spending (i.e., no min wage, no child tax credit changes etc.) I think a lot of the play here is political. Eventually, you’re going to have to pass more COVID related spending. But it’s nice to show people that republicans are also against popular things like a $15 min wage any chance you can get.
I listened to your podcast with Molly Reynolds and one thing that stuck out to me was her description about how part of why the filibuster changed in the 70s was that the Federal government was expanding into more and more areas and so there was just more stuff to filibuster.
Ezra Klein has made the argument that the filibuster should be reformed to allow for whatever party wins to govern and then the public can judge them on its merits. But in practice, both Matt and Ezra don't follow this through. Take for example the $15 minimum wage increase. States are free to pass legislation to increase the minimum wage, and some have. But others have chosen to not pass that legislation and their constituents are able to hold them accountable for it. Instead of supporting that, they are both strongly in favor of national legislation that would raise the minimum wage. Which in effect requires a state like Michigan to raise its minimum wage at the behest of the voters in New York instead of it remaining with the voters in Michigan. Why does this need to be nationalized?
Which brings me to my broader concern about the filibuster. If Progressives/Democrats want more and more issues to be nationalized, it seems very appropriate to me that there be a super majoritarian rule. Congress should need for a majority of the places where people to live to accept a rule that will affect them - otherwise leave it to the state to decide. If New York as a primarily urban state wants to pass laws that benefit urban areas, then they should do so. But I don't understand why a state like West Virginia should have to follow the same rules when the majority of their population isn't urban.
States are often heavily gerrymandered and so they don’t necessarily provide good outlets for public input, and it makes sense for there to be minimum nationwide standards on things given how we have open borders and trade between states.
Why can't we be one country with 50 states like we have for most of our existence? I don't understand the push to nationalize things. It just makes the non majority have fewer options of recourse. While there are some absolutes, so many of these issues are educated best guesses about the right thing to do.
I see plently of arguments about how bad things were stopped because of the filibuster, but what about the reverse?
What are some terrible things that have actually happened when a single party controlled the White House plus both chambers and with a filibuster-proof majority? Isn't that more relvant than hypotheticals about DC statehood or whatever?
Please hire a copy editor. I beg you.
"Todd Young from Idaho" ruined the post for me
This article also suggests how to get Mitch to at least not care if the filibuster goes the way of the do-do. If you get bi-partisan legislation passed--doesn't really matter what vehicle you use so long as Mitch loses control of his Caucus--he (and hence Fox) won't care if the filibuster stays or goes.
"A politics based around fearing the other side’s ideas more than you embrace your own ideas is a sad dead-end for a society that’s giving up."
Truth Matt. Truth.
"current rules already allow majority vote on Congressional Review Act deregulatory measures and on tax cuts (via reconciliation), so throw in judges and he’s fine."
This is an important point about the asymmetry of the parties. If you think about the traditional three legs of the Republican stool - business, social cons, and national defense - each of them have gotten their own carve out from the 60-vote rule. Business through CRA and reconciliation, social cons via the judicial noms, and the defense appropriation which is always "must pass" 95-2 votes and never subject to serious cloture challenges.
Here is the article I want to see. Explain why Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have taken their position on the filibuster. This article instead bemoans how the witless and unimaginative Dem moderates cannot perceive their true interest.
Mind you, I find your arguments persuasive, clearly Manchin and Sinema do not. I'd like to know their thinking, presuming they are smart people who have thought this through.
A little aside - but why not say "yes" to the 10 Republican counteroffer? Go ahead and see if you can pass it that way. I suspect they may struggle as Republicans like to "say" they'll work with Dems, but then don't do it. So do it. Pass it.
Then, if the Dems want to do more - ie. unemployment, state and local, etc. - then do that next. And if the Republicans won't go along, then use reconciliation. Dems get their big package, and Biden gets to say he worked with Republicans to pass bipartisan legislation where he could. Sure it's cynical, sure it's in bad faith. But so what? That's all the Republicans are doing.
Bad things the Democrats do are the fault of the Republicans?
Todd Young is a Senator from Indiana, not Idaho.
I confess I got bored reading this not because I disagree but because of course I fully agree and so what? It's just an empty calorie argument. No one on our side really mounts a defense of the filibuster (except for Bill Scher, I guess), but it just doesn't matter because the political forces -- for whatever reason -- aren't arrayed in favor.
The problem isn't that you can't convince Joe Manchin. The problem is that you *have* to convince Joe Manchin.(*) We couldn't figure out how to beat Collins in Maine; we picked a bad candidate in North Carolina; we didn't do our best to defend Bill Nelson in Florida in 2018. Etc.
Yes I know the map is stacked against Democrats in the Senate but just a few years ago (in 2009) we had 60 votes (ok, briefly) which is far more than the Republicans have ever had. Has the world changed so markedly that we can't figure out how to get 55? And if we get 55 then we don't have to worry about moderates like Manchin and Synema acting against what we think are their interests.
So figure out how to win a few more Senate seats (and please, no fantasies about DC and Puerto Rico for now) and then let's move to kill the filibuster. Until then, just use the tools we have at hand.
(*) And I will say nothing bad about Manchin. It's because of his miraculous ability to survive in West Virginia that McConnell is not Senate Majority Leader. Thank you, Joe!
the 55th Senate seat would be from Texas by pure PVI. The state is 9.9 points to the right of the country lol.
The trend line in Texas is good for Dems. I wouldn't be surprised if it votes Democrat for President in 2028, even if not in 2024. Just two years ago Beto came within 2.5 points of winning the Senate race. Could Beto (or a "Beto") beat Cruz in 2024? Why not? And I suspect that Senator would be for killing the filibuster.
To some extent I agree with you, dems should obviously just try to win as many seats as possible. But given the skew of the senate, getting 55 senators as you say is definitely no certain way to get rid of the filibuster, given those 5 additional dems are going to likely be very Sinema/Tester/Manchin-esque.
I'm happy to accept gifts from the Republicans. Since the map is stacked against the Democrats, we have to perform better than they do. We really have to figure out how to up our game. Whether it's a reasonable standard, it's the kind of thing we need to do to get a substantial enough majority to make the other changes we want to implement.
Isn't it true that the only Senate rule that ultimately matters in the rule of 51 votes? Yes there are written rules of procedure that provide for thing like "cloture" but those rules only exist, and are followed in a given case, at the pleasure of 51 senators. Any time 51 senators actually want to pass any bill they can, regardless of what the usual rules say. This is another case where the more time that's spent talking about procedure the less time is spent talking about why a senator is for or against a particular substantive result, when in fact there's very little defensible ground between procedure and substance. That game only works if enough people agree to play it.
I don’t think moderates fear leftist legislation passing. I think they (I) tend to be more risk averse, and are more keenly aware of the damage a Republican trifecta could do. I think there’s a good chance we’ll see a GOP trifecta in 2024. Will four (or just two) years of legislation have been worth it?
Matty has convinced me over the years that doing nothing is riskier than doing something, so I do support abolishing the filibuster. There appears to be a consensus (possibly wrong) that the filibuster hurts Democrats more than it hurts Republicans. I disagree McConnell is acting out of any principal. He said in 2017 that without the filibuster, cap n trade would have passed. Blocking legislation is more important to him than passing it.
He also gave a semi-hysterical warning on the Senate floor that he would grind Senate business to a halt if Democrats ended the filibuster. If McConnell fears something that much, we should definitely, definitely do it.
I think the argument goes "GOP trifecta with no filibuster will either force them to moderate or they will enact unpopular policies that will allow Dems to take power back." The sort of Ezra Klein "real ammunition" kind of thing.
What would you think of the idea of splitting the Coronavirus relief package in two--the part that the Republican 10 would support, and the rest. That way, Biden could show bipartisanship by giving the 10 something they could vote for that would pass. Then, on the rest, which the GOP wouldn't support, Dems could just pass it through reconciliation. That way they'd get to have their bipartisanship cake and eat it too. I suppose they'd need to make sure that the bill the GOP 10 would vote for didn't include poison pill that restrict the later reconciliation bill. What are the drawbacks to that approach?
I guess I don’t think the goal is really to “show bipartisanship” as it is there’s stuff they’d like to do that can’t be done through reconciliation and they think they can get Republicans to vote for it. (OK—I’m sure Biden on a personal level would love bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship—I just mean it isn’t the goal of their legislative strategy). They don’t want to sever things that Republicans don’t want that can’t go through reconciliation because then they just aren’t getting done. I’m extremely skeptical we’re getting a bipartisan bill that is (1) >$999bn (2) has anything in it other than checks and pandemic related spending (i.e., no min wage, no child tax credit changes etc.) I think a lot of the play here is political. Eventually, you’re going to have to pass more COVID related spending. But it’s nice to show people that republicans are also against popular things like a $15 min wage any chance you can get.
My suspicion is the part the 10 Republicans support is conditional on killing the stuff Dems want. Otherwise they prefer nothing.
Great article Matt, one of your best!
That was Trotsky
I listened to your podcast with Molly Reynolds and one thing that stuck out to me was her description about how part of why the filibuster changed in the 70s was that the Federal government was expanding into more and more areas and so there was just more stuff to filibuster.
Ezra Klein has made the argument that the filibuster should be reformed to allow for whatever party wins to govern and then the public can judge them on its merits. But in practice, both Matt and Ezra don't follow this through. Take for example the $15 minimum wage increase. States are free to pass legislation to increase the minimum wage, and some have. But others have chosen to not pass that legislation and their constituents are able to hold them accountable for it. Instead of supporting that, they are both strongly in favor of national legislation that would raise the minimum wage. Which in effect requires a state like Michigan to raise its minimum wage at the behest of the voters in New York instead of it remaining with the voters in Michigan. Why does this need to be nationalized?
Which brings me to my broader concern about the filibuster. If Progressives/Democrats want more and more issues to be nationalized, it seems very appropriate to me that there be a super majoritarian rule. Congress should need for a majority of the places where people to live to accept a rule that will affect them - otherwise leave it to the state to decide. If New York as a primarily urban state wants to pass laws that benefit urban areas, then they should do so. But I don't understand why a state like West Virginia should have to follow the same rules when the majority of their population isn't urban.
States are often heavily gerrymandered and so they don’t necessarily provide good outlets for public input, and it makes sense for there to be minimum nationwide standards on things given how we have open borders and trade between states.
because we're one country.
Why can't we be one country with 50 states like we have for most of our existence? I don't understand the push to nationalize things. It just makes the non majority have fewer options of recourse. While there are some absolutes, so many of these issues are educated best guesses about the right thing to do.
I see plently of arguments about how bad things were stopped because of the filibuster, but what about the reverse?
What are some terrible things that have actually happened when a single party controlled the White House plus both chambers and with a filibuster-proof majority? Isn't that more relvant than hypotheticals about DC statehood or whatever?