Thread. The argument against ending the filibuster is that Democrats will not always be the majority and would want to use the filibuster then. This is not true, I will explain. #TyrannyOfTheMinority#Congress
1/
It is all about ownership and accountability. Republicans know most of their policy proposals are unpopular and, if they were ever to enact them, then the truth of their unpopularity would be unmasked. So they rely upon the excuse that Democrats provide them...
2/
“Well we tried to do this unpopular thing that is popular with our base voters, but the Democrats filibustered.” This allows them to campaign on things and then run away from them. To not own their own policies. To not being held to account and maybe...
3/
being forced to adapt their policies and change them under electoral scrutiny. Allowing the Democrats to filibuster then provides cover to the Republicans for not enacting their unpopular agenda items. Democrats do not have this problem. Most of their...
4/
policies are popular it is just they are prevented from enacting them by the Republicans. #TyrannyOfTheMinority this is why they can be labeled #FecklessForks, no one can see their agenda. Democrats would want to own their agenda and be held accountable.
5/
The filibuster prevents this. So getting rid of the filibuster would increase accountability for both parties. It would be easier to see who is doing what. Yes, it may mean that sometimes Republican majority would be able to pass things in the Senate because...
6/
their ability to obstruct would be gone. But this is part of the passive resistance governing philosophy of any minority party. Make the majority own what you believe are bad policies, trust the argument that they are bad policies. Let people see what is being done...
7/
by those who are in power. This is particularly effective in a two party system like our own. So end the #TyrannyOfTheMinority by ending the filibuster, stop being #FecklessForks, and make the Republicans own when they are putting #PartyBeforeCountry.