Talking Filibuster

I was wary of filibuster reform for reasons Sen. Romney mentioned Sunday on TV — that the possibility of Pres. Trump winning in 2024 in tandem with Republican majorities in the House and Senate would make Trump’s policy agenda unstoppable — but since the Senate’s vote 48–52 on reform this week, I’ve come to reverse my thinking. Here’s why:

Trump’s victory in 2020 and appeal for 2024 might be an effect of the filibuster itself.

Right now, it is difficult to legislate anything because of the 60 vote requirement for most laws to pass. Hyper partisanship makes it almost impossible for either party to meet the threshold on major legislation.

Affirming or rejecting the status quo motivates voters to go to the polls, but the filibuster reduces the president’s toolbox to media antics, judicial appointments, executive action, and tax law. Short of one party winning a 60-seat super majority, this remains the case even when the President’s party dominates both chambers of Congress. When a microphone or tweet rather than a legislative pen is the president’s strongest tool, a media savvy juggernaut like former Pres. Trump has an appeal to voters that most career-politicians lack.

But killing the filibuster would make governments under one-party control more likely to accomplish ambitious policy goals in a two-year term. Laws drafted on narrow party lines or rare-bipartisan alliances would affect Americans more quickly, and voters would have a stronger incentive to vote not only in presidential years but also in mid-term elections to reward or punish politicians for passing those laws. Government programs would actually seem like they are on the ballot, not just personalities. On Election Day, voters would know which party to thank or punish for the changes around them.

In fact, a Senate that legislates with simple majorities would very likely jazz up presidential campaigns by candidates like Romney who are less wily with a Tweet or microphone than Trump but who, like Romney, can promise voters an activist 180 degree turn from the incumbent’s legislative accomplishments. And unlike in 2012, voters would know that the winner, even if he or she’s someone they’d rather not have a beer with, would be able to deliver.