Filibuster and Forever
You remember how the American filibuster works, right? Quick version: The Senate’s rules require not a simple majority of 51 votes but a supermajority of 60 votes to approve most legislation. However, it only takes a simple majority of 51 votes to change this rule — the so-called “nuclear option.”
Why, you may ask, does the filibuster endure? The usual story is “What comes around, goes around.” The other party will eventually get control of House, Senate, and presidency. Ending the filibuster helps your party fulfill its fondest dreams in the short run, but realizes your worst nightmare in the long run. Since both parties know this, the filibuster survives.
What’s weird about this story is that (a) politicians usually seem to have very short time horizons, and (b) if your party has a trifecta, it will probably take many years before the other party gets a trifecta. How long? With coaxing, I got Chat to produce the following table of how long trifectas take to fully reverse.
The average trifecta duration is 10.3 years, with a median of 8 years. What’s especially striking is that in the last century alone, Democrats won trifectas, then avoided full reversals, for multiple decades. 1933-1953 was a full generation. 1961-2003 was two full generations. Yes, the last two trifectas were brief, but atypically so.
So what? It seems like power-hungry politicians are ignoring a treasure trove of power untapped. Think about what Republicans could do by 2028 if they ended the filibuster today. They could end all immigration and raise tariffs to the skies — and the Supreme Court would totally let them do it. Indeed, abolishing the filibuster would sideline the Supreme Court altogether. After all, Republicans could simply pass a court-packing bill to fill the judiciary with loyal MAGAs.
Sure, Democrats could reverse all of this, but not until their next trifecta. If Republicans believe that Trump’s policies are half as wonderful as he claims, moreover, they should expect not electoral punishment, but electoral rewards, for delivering the full Monty. Sure, bad luck will eventually give the Democrats full control, but that could be a generation in the future, or even two generations.
Needless to say, I’m not advocating the end of the filibuster. Personally, I’d like to see the filibuster requirement raised from 60 out of 100 to 80 or 90. If I thought there was a snowball’s chance in hell that top Republicans would take this post to heart, I wouldn’t have published this post. The challenge, in my mind, is figuring out why the filibuster endures. Possibilities to consider:
Politicians (or at least senators) are less power-hungry and short-sighted than I suppose.
Politicians (or at least senators) underestimate how much extra power they could grab.
Politicians (or at least senators) underestimate how long it will take the other party to win a trifecta.
Voters really love the filibuster (or maybe time-tested constraints on government in general), so ending the filibuster would reverse the current trifecta ASAP. Historical data on the duration of trifectas is therefore misleading.
While ending the filibuster would be great for the ruling party in general, voters would harshly punish the specific politicians who spearheaded it. Since no particular politician wants to lead the charge, the status quo endures.
Others?
Please defend your favorite stories in the comments.
My understanding is that the filibuster endures because it allows the Senate to refuse to pass things that they actually don't want to pass, but that their base wants. "Sorry, my hands are tied, nothing I can do."
It's is precisely because senators (in this case Rs but in other cases Ds) don't want to actually have to vote on abolishing immigration or raising tariffs. Many know it's bad policy and would hurt them if it were to pass, but politically it's helpful for them to be able to say they "would if they could".