,
7 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I’ve been for abolishing the filibuster for a long long time. I think people need to recognize, though, that getting rid of it doesn’t just make major legislation easier to pass. It makes the passage of major legislation less important.
In the world we live in now, getting a big bill over all the high hurdles in Congress entrenches it firmly enough that it can largely survive a long rollout, a rocky start, and the opponents of the bill sweeping back into power—like the ACA has.
In a filibuster-free world, legislation will be more exposed to backlash. Repeal movements will have a lower threshold for success. The important thing will become less passing the bill but making sure it quickly becomes, and long remains, desired and beloved by voters.
The senate filibuster has a sordid history, and it would be a good thing for the legislative process to become more responsive and democratic. Abolition would rob the political movement that seeks to enshrine structural racism and inequality of its most potent tool.
But abolishing the filibuster, while making more room for progressive legislation, also leaves more room for backward steps and see-saw battles of enactment and repeal. That’s good for democracy, imo, but a real challenge for a policy to counteract climate change in a short time.
I welcome the change, but I think we need to acknowledge it will make the popularity of progressive measures before, during, and after they’re enacted even more vital. Using the ACA process as a model won’t work.
er, make that: their enactment*
