This debate is contrived by liberals and the media for one purpose only: to empower Democrats to lord over half the country without debate or compromise.

Charles Cooke has written an excellent piece outlining the un-American nature of the anti-filibuster crusade, a Constitution-eroding, radical play to nationalize politics by empowering slim and fleeting majorities to institute wide-ranging, generational policies.

View Comments (1)

But it’s worth talking about the framing of the debate as well, which has been laughably misleading. . . .

Now, I realize reporters often see the world through a left-wing prism, but isn’t there even the slightest bit of curiosity among their readers as to why a filibuster emergency didn’t come up during the Trump years when Democrats were constantly — in unprecedented fashion, even — using the parliamentary tool against the president? Democrats filibustered the GOP when it was running the House, Senate, and presidency; they filibustered a COVID-relief bill and Tim Scott’s criminal-justice bill, just to name two. The Senate GOP had to end debate on judicial nominees and break filibusters 314 times in Trump’s single term. To put that in perspective, every other president in the history of the United States has faced, combined, 244 of those roll-call votes over a filibuster. . .

But if Democrats want to compel states to live under centralized rule, well, then yes, they should definitely be asked to hit the 60-vote threshold — at the very least — to make it happen.

It has also become popular to assert that McConnell would likely destroy the filibuster if given a chance. Where is the evidence for this? Republicans enjoyed complete control of the government for two years in 2016–17, and not once did McConnell even threaten to overturn the legislative filibuster when he could have jammed through all kinds of huge bills. . . .

Moreover, it takes preternatural chutzpah for Joe Biden to claim that “democracy” is having a difficult time functioning less than a week after he signed a wholly partisan, nearly $2 trillion Democratic Party wish list. There is a far better argument to be made that the Founders would have recoiled from the thought of that monstrosity being rammed through the legislature without any debate or buy-in from half the states. The real problem with the modern Senate, some of us would argue, isn’t the existence of the filibuster but the existence of reconciliation — which allows for lawmakers to avoid the 60-vote threshold in certain cases. But this debate is contrived by liberals and the media for one purpose only: to empower Democrats to lord over half of the country without any debate or compromise.