Jencunas: Democrats would be smart to protect the filibuster – Boston Herald

After Joe Manchin killed President Bidens ambitious Build Back Better spending bill, some Senate Democrats have moved onto a plan to pass voting rights legislation by exempting the topic from the filibusters requirement of 60 votes. This is the wrong lesson to take from their legislative defeat, which actually shows why Democratic leaders have been wise to preserve the filibuster. Until maverick Democrats Joe Manchin and Krystin Sinema become reliable partisans, getting 50 votes for legislation will be almost as difficult as getting 60.

Democrats are rightfully frustrated by their inability to pass legislation. But their problems are rooted in the politics of 2020, not 1837, the year of the first Senate filibuster. Democrats cannot lose a single vote in the 50-50 Senate, yet Manchin and Sinema regularly break with the party on issues like rolling back the Trump tax cuts and letting Medicaid pay for abortion. They also disagree with each other on many issues, so concessions to one may further alienate the other.

Even without the filibuster, either Manchin or Sinema could still kill any voting rights bill. The same is true for codifying Roe v. Wade into law, universal background checks for gun buyers, and making it easier for workers to organize into a union. Indeed, given their actions so far, the chance of these bills getting 50 votes is almost zero.

George W. Bush faced a similar dynamic in the first two years of his presidency, with an evenly divided Senate that included liberal Republicans Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Jeffords. His domestic legislative agenda was limited to a tax cut that got 12 Democratic votes and an education bill co-sponsored by liberal icon Ted Kennedy.

Weakening the filibuster will not lead to transformative progressive legislation but a stronger Republican Party. Because every state gets two senators, the Senate favors less populous, rural states that are now Republican strongholds. Unless Democrats somehow reverse a decade of decline with white, non-college educated voters, Republicans will control the Senate most of the time. That means Democrats should preserve the filibuster at all costs, not out of devotion to 19th century legislative norms, but because it is in their political interest to preserve the power of the Senates minority party.

Many progressives want to ignore this grim reality. Some argue the filibuster doesnt check Republican majorities because Republicans only goals are confirming conservative apparatchiks as judges and cutting taxes which only require 50 votes under the rules of the Senate. This ignores the potent power of conservative legislation. Free from the 60-vote threshold, a Republican majority could pass a federal right to work law, a version of Texass de facto abortion ban, and allow nationwide unrestricted concealed carry of handguns. Without the filibuster, Democrats only response to far-right legislation will be sending angry Tweets and frantic fundraising emails while Mitch McConnell sends his agenda to a Republican president.

The other Democratic argument for strengthening the power of Senate majorities is that Republicans will eliminate the filibuster the moment it limits their agenda. Under this logic, Democrats should strike first. This ignores reality. While McConnell will use the 50-vote threshold if its handed to him, he has shown no appetite for creating it on his own. In 2016, while Donald Trump was president and Republicans had a 52-48 Senate majority, the legislative filibuster went untouched.

Democrats should not hand the Republicans the political equivalent of a loaded gun just because theyre rightfully frustrated by the constraints of a 50-50 Senate majority. Instead, Charles Schumer and President Biden should try to salvage as much of Build Back Better as they can. That could mean shrinking the bill to something Manchin can support or going bipartisan and embracing Mitt Romneys alternative plan for a child tax credit. Neither of these options will thrill progressives, but theyre certainly better than weakening the filibuster a year away from Republicans controlling at least one chamber of Congress.

Brian Jencunas is a Massachusetts-based political and government relations consultant.

Original post:

Jencunas: Democrats would be smart to protect the filibuster - Boston Herald