Mitch McConnell’s reaction to plans among some Democrats to ditch the Senate filibuster are garnering a certain amount of attention. From his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:
Imagine a world where every single task requires a physical quorum of 51 senators on the floor—and, by the way, the vice president doesn’t count. Everything that Democratic Senates did to Presidents Bush and Trump, everything the Republican Senate did to President Obama, would be child’s play compared with the disaster that Democrats would create for their own priorities, if they broke the Senate. Even the most mundane tasks of our chamber—and therefore of the Biden presidency—would become much harder, not easier, in a postnuclear 50-50 Senate.
If the Democrats break the rules to kill Rule 22 on a 50-50 basis, then we will use every other rule to make tens of millions of Americans’ voices heard. Perhaps the majority would come after the other rules in turn. Perhaps Rule 22 would be only the first of many to fall, until the Senate ceased to be distinct from the House in any respect.
Even so, the process would be long and laborious. This chaos wouldn’t open up an express lane for the Biden presidency to speed into the history books. The Senate would be more like a 100-car pileup—nothing moving as gawkers watch.
And then there’s the small problem that majorities are never permanent. The last time a Democratic majority leader was trying to start a nuclear exchange— Harry Reid in 2013—I offered a warning. I said my colleagues would regret it a lot sooner than they thought. A few years and a few Supreme Court vacancies later, many of our Democratic colleagues admitted publicly that they did.
If the Democrats kill the legislative filibuster, history would repeat itself, but more dramatically. As soon as Republicans wound up back in control, we wouldn’t stop at erasing every liberal change that hurt the country. We’d strengthen America with all kinds of conservative policies with zero input from the other side.
How about a nationwide right-to-work law? Defunding Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities on day one? A whole new era of domestic energy production. Sweeping new protections for conscience and the right to life of the unborn? Concealed-carry reciprocity in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Massive hardening of security on our southern border?
Even now, we saw during amendment votes days ago that certain common-sense Republican positions enjoy more support in the current Senate than some of the Democratic committee chairmen’s priorities—and this is with them in the majority.
The pendulum would swing both ways, and it would swing hard.
Speaking of collegiality.
I’ve said before that I think that the Harry Reid Senate was the worst of my memory. Reid’s use of what was called “the nuclear option” figured strongly in that assessment. You don’t just evaluate performance based on presumed good intentions but on what the actual results are and the precedents established. Ditching the filibuster might be a tactical success but it would be a strategic disaster.
Maybe.
But remember Democrats have an agenda the party can cohere around. As observed during the Trump years, the Republicans don’t except for tax cuts.
Even imagine in 2024 Republicans win the trifecta, and no filibuster exists. What could they pass which doesn’t split the party (meaning it would fail to pass like their attempt at replacing Obamacare) — they are split on immigration, trade, size of Government, foreign policy, etc.
In the medium term, Democrats would benefit more from killing the legislative filibuster then Republicans would.
Somehow Mitch forgets to note that Reid changed the rule because McConnell was refusing to advance Dem nominees to judicial positions. It is always someone else’s fault.
Steve
If one is going to complain about Sen McConnell’s memory — go further then that.
What do you think happened to Miguel Estrada? Or why is there a verb “Borking”?
To mark the start of the decline of Senate collegiality and anger over the filibuster, I believe one has to go back to the filibuster of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice in 1968.
IMO John Towers’s confirmation hearings are more likely than either Bork or Fortas.
“Or why is there a verb “Borkingâ€?”
I dont know, why is there Borking? The issue with him was one of integrity. He failed because rather than refuse to fire Cox like Richardson and Ruckelshaus he agreed to do it. Coincidentally he gets nominated to SCOTUS. The appearance of his having made a deal for that position was a bit much, but even if he did not he didnt have the integrity for the position. Back when we sort of cared about stuff like that. The “Borking” thing was then made up by the GOP. They could have just nominated someone without such a scandal behind them.
Steve
“Somehow Mitch forgets to note that Reid changed the rule because McConnell was refusing to advance Dem nominees to judicial positions. It is always someone else’s fault.”
In the 107th Congress, Bush’s first term, the Democrats blocked more judicial nominees than had been blocked in the previous century combined. The Democrats started the judicial wars and have been more than happy to escalate at every step, including many openly advocating for packing the Supreme Court, one of the few bridges too far for even the imperial Presidency of FDR.
So I don’t have any sympathy for Democrats. They started the judicial wars, but the Republicans have been more effective at fighting. And at each tactical loss, Democrats want to double-down.
McConnell, for all his flaws, understands this quite well. He had the opportunity to nuke the legislative filibuster when Trump was first elected – and it was something that Trump wanted very badly – but he didn’t. This is the same warning he gave to Democrats on judicial filibusters.
And considering the current structural GoP advantage in the Senate, McConnell and his successors will be positioned to take advantage of this change more than Democrats. And I will similarly have no sympathy for Democrats if they choose to make a short-term tactical move that ends up biting them in the ass down the road – exactly like what happened with judicial nominees.
and that underscores a point I have made repeatedly. The Democrats are scoring tactical victories but those are leading to strategic defeats.
That is completely understandable since Democrats have been letting the courts run interference for them in their social goals for the last 50 years. And that reinforces another point I have made: the more you let another branch carry your water, the less you need negotiating skills.