Democrats on the Verge of a Dangerous Mistake: Undermining the Filibuster
Following the tragic killing of Charlie Kirk, President Donald Trump has blamed the "radical left" and hinted at a crackdown, raising concerns about potential government overreach. This situation highlights the crucial role of the Senate filibuster as a check on executive power, yet Democrats are currently contemplating actions that could inadvertently lead to its demise.
Trump's Response and Potential Overreach
President Trump's immediate response to Kirk's killing included vows to target those who "contributed to this atrocity," fueling fears of a crackdown on political opponents. Prominent right-wing commentators have called for action against progressive donors and organizations, further escalating tensions.
The potential for abuse of power in such circumstances is significant, reminiscent of historical instances where violence has been used to justify repression. The Senate filibuster, requiring 60 votes to pass most legislation, stands as a key obstacle to sweeping changes enacted solely by the Republican majority.
The Filibuster as a Guardrail Against Authoritarianism
The filibuster's existence necessitates bipartisan cooperation or reliance on existing law and executive authority for any repressive measures. This is why it is ironic that leading up to the incident, Democrats were considering actions that could well lead to the removal of the filibuster. While often viewed as an impediment to progressive policies, the filibuster serves as a critical guardrail against potential authoritarian impulses, especially during times of heightened political polarization.
The Looming Government Shutdown and the Filibuster's Future
Prior to Kirk's death, a major point of contention among Democrats was whether to filibuster a new funding bill, potentially triggering a government shutdown. This tactic, intended to force concessions from Trump on issues related to his administration's actions, carries the risk of provoking Republicans to eliminate the filibuster altogether.
If Democrats shut down the government, a likely result will be the Senate GOP facing increased pressure to change the rules and end the filibuster. While Republicans have resisted abolishing the filibuster in the past, a perceived abuse of the procedure by Democrats could change their calculus.
The Nuclear Option and Senate Procedure
Ending the filibuster requires a simple majority vote (51 senators, or 50 plus the vice president) through a process known as the "nuclear option." While considered an extreme measure and generally avoided for legislation, the possibility remains if Republicans feel Democrats are acting intransigently.
A shutdown strategy intended to curb Trump's authoritarianism could inadvertently result in him gaining more power, which is why Democrats should reconsider provoking a confrontation that could remove one of the major constraints on his power.
Rethinking the Progressive Stance on the Filibuster
Progressives have long argued for eliminating the filibuster, believing it hinders their agenda. However, this perspective fails to account for the current political climate and the potential for Trump to exploit unchecked power.
Arguments in favor of ending the filibuster often assume that a majority should be able to enact its agenda without obstruction. However, this ignores the risk of a president using that power to manipulate elections or suppress dissent. The opening months of Trump's second administration should dispel any illusion that the right doesn’t want to “do anything” with government, as they have displayed enormous imagination in how they’ve weaponized federal powers to threaten and coerce various societal actors.
The Consequences of a Filibuster-Free World
The filibuster effectively constricts the horizon of the possible. With the filibuster gone, Trump could reshape elections and crack down on political opponents with greater ease. A new law would be a much more powerful and effective way for Trump to reshape elections.
Democrats should carefully consider the potential consequences of removing this check on executive power before pursuing a course of action that could ultimately empower the very forces they seek to resist.
