Politics sure is a strange game, isn't it? One day, your friend is your enemy and the next day, he's your friend again. What he'll be tomorrow is anyone's guess.
Meanwhile, while your friend is your enemy, you call him every name in the book and demand his resignation. Of course, everyone knows you're not serious and that eventually, politics being cyclical, you're going to be fast friends again — someday.
Before the election, the radical left expressed hate for the Senate filibuster. The filibuster is one of the key protections of our Constitutional republic in that it prevents either party from passing ruinously partisan legislation. It forces compromise. While that might be a dirty word today, it's essential for the functioning of our republic.
The prospect of a filibuster means that most legislation must pass with at least a 60-vote majority. The majority party always — always — complains about it. Presidents also hate it because the minority party can block most of the chief executive's agenda unless the president compromises.
When the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate and holding the White House, they complained incessantly about the filibuster. It was a "racist holdover" from slavery times. It only "worsens the undemocratic nature and function of the Senate."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, wrote a letter three years ago signed by more than 100 Democrats demanding that Senate Democrats take radical action to eliminate the filibuster.
"This is an existential moment for our country," Jayapal and the other House Democrats wrote. "We cannot let a procedural tool that can be abolished stand in the way of justice, prosperity, and equity."
An "existential moment," indeed. What is Rep. Jayapal saying today now that the Democrats are in the minority?
“Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now, when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” Jayapal told reporters at a news conference. “But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver” — referencing Democrats’ efforts to pass ballot measures on the minimum wage, sick leave, and abortion rights.
In other words, it's an "existential" crisis only when the Republicans are in the majority and the Democrats are not.
This kind of crass cynicism is why most normal people hate politics. Nobody stands for anything. There are no "Profiles in Courage" by any member or party to stand against the power of the government when it is to be used injudiciously.
The filibuster is a mechanism to control power and put a brake on partisan excesses from both sides. Jayapal's sudden reversal is nauseating.
As recently as September, Jayapal posted on X: “It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It’s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It’s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It’s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster.”
Former President Barack Obama had joined with Jayapal in calling the filibuster a “Jim Crow relic,” because it was used in the 1960s to prevent civil rights legislation from passing, according to Politico. In more recent times, the technique has been used to halt congressional oversight and voting rights bills.
There's no such thing as "suspending" the filibuster for certain bills relating to abortion or "voting rights." That's what the Democrats wanted to do. Of course, once you "suspend" the rules for one issue, it's too easy to suspend them for something else.
The uncertainty about who will take up their mantle makes it more essential than ever to keep this in mind: There is no world in which abolishing the filibuster makes it easier to pass the good laws without also making it easier to pass the bad laws—and that's true no matter how you'd personally identify what counts as "good" or "bad."
Furthermore, once the filibuster is gone, it will be gone. There's no such thing as a one-time elimination of the filibuster to just do a special thing. In the final stages of the campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris suggested that the Senate should get rid of the filibuster in order to pass protections for abortion rights. Other Democrats have called for ending the filibuster to restructure the Supreme Court. This is not realistic. There either is a filibuster rule or there isn't one, because (like all Senate rules) it is only as strong as the members' willingness to support it.
There's no reforming the filibuster. Jayapal and her radical friends know it, which is why Republicans must keep it.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member