Ganging Aft Agley

kalel asked: What do you think of getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate or even just changing the number of senators required to break a filibuster?

The filibuster is one of those things that I (of course) love when republicans control the Senate and hate when the democrats are in the majority.  

I feel like getting rid of the filibuster would be a recipe for radical changes in law and policy from one election to the next, which could be a chaotic mess, but could also be a useful way for people to actually figure out whether they like their party’s policies rather than just their party’s rhetoric. 

Another way to think about it is that getting rid of the filibuster would mean the party in power can get more things done.  But getting things done tends to piss people off.  It’s much easier for individual Senators to get reelected when they haven’t done anything and can blame the system or the opposition party for it.  So, getting rid of the filibuster could also lead to Senators being more effectively held accountable for their actions or inactions in office.

That is, I think getting rid of the filibuster would lead to more frequent changes in policy, majority party, and individual Senators.  Having written this out, I’m starting to convince myself that the benefits of these structural changes might actually outweigh what would be the horrifying reality of a republican government unbounded by the filibuster.  

I also think that such a change in how easily the federal government can pass laws would lead to an absolute exodus of poor republicans from the republican party because it would be much easier to feel the difference between democratic and republican policies, rather than simply going on and on about cutting government without ever actually doing it.  That is, I think a lot of people might realize that government’s not so awful after all.