Thread by @mattsheffield

1/x How the U.S. Senate filibuster does more than block progressive laws, it's facilitated GOP radicalism

Join me for a summary of my latest @DiscoverFlux article or click through here: flux.community/matthew-sheffi…

@DiscoverFlux As many political observers have noted, the filibuster tactic in the U.S. Senate has blocked many progressive bills from becoming laws.

Its institutional effect is even more pronounced, however, because it's enabled Mitch McConnell to create his own form of "triangulation"

In politics, triangulation means manufacturing a new political position that makes your own look more moderate or reasonable. This is exactly what McConnell's done w/the filibuster. He's convinced many people (incl Kyrsten Sinema) that it keeps the Senate centrist.

In truth, however, the filibuster doesn't apply to things that Mitch McConnell cares about. He evaded the filibuster to pass many judges and also many overrides of Obama policies through a little-noticed law called the Congressional Review Act: abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump…

McConnell can get almost anything he wants without being hindered by the filibuster. Even so, however, McConnell & other conservatives' anti-government views are so unpopular that the rollbacks of things like Obamacare or Social Security that they crave have never happened

This is why the courts (where nominations cannot be filibustered) are so important to conservative elites. They can use unelected, lifetime-appointed judges to overturn spending and regulations that are politically popular. Hence the dozens of lawsuits against Obamacare.

The other thing about the filibuster that is that it's enabled far-right Republicans to keep getting elected to Congress because their monstrously unpopular ideas never become law. McConnell just points to the filibuster and says "No." And then, magically, he's become a centrist.

The filibuster is a huge reason why the U.S. Republican party is so far-right compared to international conservative parties. Kyrsten Sinema has it wrong: The filibuster doesn't protect entitlements, the fact that no one agrees w/Republican elites on them does.

In a majority voting political system, the Republican Party would finally have the accountability it has evaded for decades because of the filibuster.

Removing the filibuster would force the GOP to become more moderate, in the same way that UK Conservatives were forced.

This story isn't known much in the U.S., but even Margaret Thatcher, who passed many more anti-government laws than Ronald Reagan, explicitly refused to do anything to UK's National Health Service samathieson.com/sa-mathieson/m…

The fake conservative centrism established by the filibuster not only shuts progressives out of the Overton Window, it's generated a radicalization loop where conservative activists become more extreme the more their ideas never face electoral consequence salon.com/2016/12/14/ris…

Dang it, I made a correction and it broke the thread. The discussion continues here:

https://twitter.com/mattsheffield/status/1407690098758492161

In summary, if you want a more moderate GOP, eliminating the filibuster would go a long way toward empowering centrist Republicans. They'd be able to negotiate on their own terms and not have to be beholden to their far right.