By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former President Donald Trump is urging Senate Republicans to eliminate the legislative filibuster to end the government shutdown, a move progressives had warned about, citing the potential for Republicans to utilize such a tactic. Trump’s demand echoes Democrats’ past efforts to end the filibuster during the Biden presidency, which were ultimately unsuccessful. Should the filibuster be scrapped, it would allow the Republicans to pass legislation with a simple majority. Trump’s push comes as millions face the loss of federal assistance and the potential for rising health insurance costs.
Read the original article here
Dems Failed to Scrap Filibuster Under Biden. Now Trump Wants ‘Nuclear Option’ to End Shutdown |
“I hate to say I told you so but… I fucking told you so,” wrote progressive journalist Mehdi Hasan, who repeatedly urged Senate Democrats to end the filibuster during Joe Biden’s presidency.
So, let’s talk about this whole filibuster saga. It’s become quite the hot topic, hasn’t it? We’ve got this progressive journalist, Mehdi Hasan, who, like many others, was shouting from the rooftops during Biden’s time in office: “Ditch the filibuster!” And now? Well, it seems like maybe, just maybe, they were onto something. With the current political climate, and Trump’s recent statements, it’s pretty clear the filibuster is back in the spotlight, and not in a good way for Democrats.
The frustration is understandable, and it stems from a fundamental difference in how Democrats and Republicans seem to approach the game. Many believe that Democrats are still operating under the assumption that Republicans can be reasoned with, that somehow, common ground can be found. This leads to what feels like a constant state of kid-glove treatment. The whole “when they go low, we go high” approach, while seemingly virtuous, doesn’t always translate into effective political strategy, especially when dealing with those who, as some might put it, are not interested in playing by the same rules.
And that’s where the heart of the frustration lies. When the chips are down, and crucial programs like healthcare and food assistance are on the line, the working class often ends up bearing the brunt of the consequences. There’s a feeling that Democrats could have used the “nuclear option” – ending the filibuster altogether – to push through legislation. Why didn’t they? Well, one theory floating around is that they didn’t want to be the ones fully responsible for any negative outcomes or unpopular cuts, preferring to put the onus on the Republicans.
Then there’s the question of the filibuster’s impact on broader political strategy. Would ending it during the Biden administration have prevented a potential Trump 2.0? It’s a complicated question, and the answer isn’t so clear-cut. Some argue that the average American doesn’t necessarily pay close attention to the intricacies of Senate procedure, so the immediate impact might not have been felt in a way that would shift the electorate significantly. The real issue is the way this political dance is being executed; the focus should be on the impact on the American people, not on a political game.
It’s clear that the decision not to get rid of the filibuster was met with anger, and it’s important to acknowledge how specific senators like Manchin and Sinema were essential to the decision. Then, the frustration is compounded when those who blocked action begin pointing fingers at others.
Let’s be clear about one thing: the filibuster has become a deeply divisive issue. Some see it as a guardrail, a protection against the potential tyranny of the majority. Others view it as an instrument of obstruction, allowing a minority to thwart the will of the people. It’s a debate with passionate arguments on both sides. But we have to ask ourselves: is the filibuster truly safeguarding democracy, or is it enabling a kind of political paralysis?
Ultimately, the argument for getting rid of the filibuster is a straightforward one: If you win an election, you should be able to govern. You should be able to enact the policies you campaigned on, and then, if those policies succeed or fail, you face the consequences at the ballot box. This is how it works in many other democracies, and it’s a principle that resonates with many Americans. In short, the filibuster may be a tool of obstruction.
The irony, of course, is that the very people who opposed ending the filibuster now may be facing a scenario where Republicans are considering the “nuclear option”. And if that happens, the consequences could be far-reaching. The best-case scenario for the left, as it’s been suggested, is that the GOP scraps the filibuster, and takes the brunt of the resulting fallout.
The debate over the filibuster underscores a deeper problem: a lack of trust in the political system, and the belief that the “elites” are not working in the best interests of the working class. It’s the constant feeling that the system is rigged, that the game is fixed, and that real change is impossible.