Yeah, I assumed he was talking about the reluctance of Manchin/Sinema to abolish the filibuster. At the very least, it needs to be reformed. Despite what a lot of progressives seem to think, it has a long history of being used both for good and for ill (there actually used to be House filibusters as well). One of the big problems with…
Yeah, I assumed he was talking about the reluctance of Manchin/Sinema to abolish the filibuster. At the very least, it needs to be reformed. Despite what a lot of progressives seem to think, it has a long history of being used both for good and for ill (there actually used to be House filibusters as well). One of the big problems with it now is that it has become so cheap that it has effectively turned a simple majority vote requirement for regular legislation into a 60-vote requirement. In the past, filibusters weren't free - they had an associated cost, which discouraged their use as a matter of regular order. And they at least *encouraged* debate, even if some of the debate was just disingenuous babbling. It's easy to forget that the 60-vote cloture is actually supposed to be a requirement to *end* debate. Now, it's the opposite, as they don't even bother *beginning* debate without an assurance that it will end at some point.
So yeah, it needs reform, but under the current circumstances, there doesn't seem to be time to do much besides eliminate it. This is part of the reason I was hoping we could just pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, with the hope that this would have created enough good will to push through Manchin's voting reform bill. Maybe that's naive, but without giving bipartisanship every chance, there's no way to convince Manchin and Sinema to even think about eliminating the filibuster, and I worry that the current bull-headedness by the House progressive caucus is only making them more resistant to the idea of enabling rule by bare majority.
Yeah, I assumed he was talking about the reluctance of Manchin/Sinema to abolish the filibuster. At the very least, it needs to be reformed. Despite what a lot of progressives seem to think, it has a long history of being used both for good and for ill (there actually used to be House filibusters as well). One of the big problems with it now is that it has become so cheap that it has effectively turned a simple majority vote requirement for regular legislation into a 60-vote requirement. In the past, filibusters weren't free - they had an associated cost, which discouraged their use as a matter of regular order. And they at least *encouraged* debate, even if some of the debate was just disingenuous babbling. It's easy to forget that the 60-vote cloture is actually supposed to be a requirement to *end* debate. Now, it's the opposite, as they don't even bother *beginning* debate without an assurance that it will end at some point.
So yeah, it needs reform, but under the current circumstances, there doesn't seem to be time to do much besides eliminate it. This is part of the reason I was hoping we could just pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, with the hope that this would have created enough good will to push through Manchin's voting reform bill. Maybe that's naive, but without giving bipartisanship every chance, there's no way to convince Manchin and Sinema to even think about eliminating the filibuster, and I worry that the current bull-headedness by the House progressive caucus is only making them more resistant to the idea of enabling rule by bare majority.