The inevitable, and very fair, reaction to my column this week will be the sort of thing well-voiced in any discussion about the filibuster. Namely, that it's alluring to dismiss minority protections when Democrats are in power, but power is transient. The worm will turn and blue districts will flood with crimson and then it will be Republicans controlling the agenda and Democrats unable to block their priorities. To put it more concretely: Don't imagine Washington without the filibuster in 2009. Imagine Washington without the filibuster in 2005, when George W. Bush want to turn Social Security over to the wise men running the investment banks.And, well, fine. Elections should have consequences. The argument for the filibuster is not that it is anti-progressive but anti-majoritarian. Voters should be able to elect presidents and ratify solutions without seeing their demand for action invalidated by the Senate. Moreover, breaking apart the filibuster would also leave politicians more accountable. Imagine, for instance, that Bush had tried to pass Social Security privatization in early-2006 despite its broad unpopularity. Republican senators would likely have abandoned the plan. Voicing abstract support for an unpopular agenda item that won't pass is different than putting your fingerprints directly on a hated piece of legislation. In that sense, the filibuster actually increases ideological accountability, which may force a heightened sense of political caution. It's easier to talk crazy to the base when you can blame the filibuster for your lack of progress on their priorities. Without that hedge, however, politicians would have to weigh the dangers of disappointing their supporters against the likelihood of reprisals from angering voters. Similarly, the filibuster doesn't just remove an impediment to passing legislation. It removes an impediment to repealing it, too. My hunch is a Social Security plan passed in 2006 would have been repealed some time last week. Or maybe not. And if not, then again, so be it. The majority should be able to take action on its priorities. If politicians betray them, they can punish those politicians. If their desires proved foolish, then they can work to correct their mistakes. But the current situation -- in which it is near impossible to make progress because we of a provision meant to protect mistakes -- is a rather more patronizing state of affairs. I'm much more comfortable with a country in which we bear the consequences of our chosen actions rather than the consequences of our structural inability to act. A world in which George W. Bush could possibly have passed Social Security privatization because he won the election is preferable to a world in which global warming cannot be addressed and health care cannot be reformed because Senate Rule 22 says so. ON FILIBUSTERS.
The inevitable, and very fair, reaction to my column this week will be the sort of thing well-voiced in any discussion about the filibuster. Namely, that it's alluring to dismiss minority protections when Democrats are in power, but power is transient. The worm will turn and blue districts will flood with crimson and then it will be Republicans controlling the agenda and Democrats unable to block their priorities. To put it more concretely: Don't imagine Washington without the filibuster in 2009. Imagine Washington without the filibuster in 2005, when George W. Bush want to turn Social Security over to the wise men running the investment banks.And, well, fine. Elections should have consequences. The argument for the filibuster is not that it is anti-progressive but anti-majoritarian. Voters should be able to elect presidents and ratify solutions without seeing their demand for action invalidated by the Senate. Moreover, breaking apart the filibuster would also leave politicians more accountable. Imagine, for instance, that Bush had tried to pass Social Security privatization in early-2006 despite its broad unpopularity. Republican senators would likely have abandoned the plan. Voicing abstract support for an unpopular agenda item that won't pass is different than putting your fingerprints directly on a hated piece of legislation. In that sense, the filibuster actually increases ideological accountability, which may force a heightened sense of political caution. It's easier to talk crazy to the base when you can blame the filibuster for your lack of progress on their priorities. Without that hedge, however, politicians would have to weigh the dangers of disappointing their supporters against the likelihood of reprisals from angering voters. Similarly, the filibuster doesn't just remove an impediment to passing legislation. It removes an impediment to repealing it, too. My hunch is a Social Security plan passed in 2006 would have been repealed some time last week. Or maybe not. And if not, then again, so be it. The majority should be able to take action on its priorities. If politicians betray them, they can punish those politicians. If their desires proved foolish, then they can work to correct their mistakes. But the current situation -- in which it is near impossible to make progress because we of a provision meant to protect mistakes -- is a rather more patronizing state of affairs. I'm much more comfortable with a country in which we bear the consequences of our chosen actions rather than the consequences of our structural inability to act. A world in which George W. Bush could possibly have passed Social Security privatization because he won the election is preferable to a world in which global warming cannot be addressed and health care cannot be reformed because Senate Rule 22 says so. 
