Even after more than 30 years of following politics, I continue to be amazed by how short-sighted political people can be. Just a few short years ago, public-spirited U.S. senators (including my own former boss, Republican Mike DeWine of Ohio) were vilified by the right wing for standing up to save the filibuster, and thus the Senate’s constitutional role in moderating the passions of the more plebiscitary House of Representatives. The filibuster that they saved is now the only thing standing between us and Obamacare. I’m not holding my breath waiting for any apologies. But can’t we at least, you know, learn something from history? So I address this question to Rachel Maddow, who just delivered a long and passionate address against the filibuster (I caught only the last five minutes of it): Three years from now, Palin is president, with J. D. Hayworth as Senate majority leader, and Michele Bachmann as Speaker of the House. (Of course it’s impossible – just like the election of Obama was, and the election of Scott Brown, and . . .) I imagine they, too — Palin, Bachmann, Hayworth, Secretary of Defense Liz Cheney, Secretary of Education Glenn Beck, the whole team — are going to want to pass some legislation. Would 51 Senate votes be okay for that, as far as you’re concerned? Or will we agree, then, that major changes in national policy need more deliberation, more of a consensus, and not just the passions of a fleeting democratic moment?

UPDATE: An e-mailer helpfully points out the following: “Hey Dummy — no one was trying to get rid of the whole filibuster. Republicans wanted to nuke the right to filibuster judicial appointments.” I trust readers will not be surprised to hear that I was, in fact, well aware of this. But not only is it true that the principle of the filibuster was at stake, I would also contend that the filibuster is even more valuable and necessary in the case of judicial appointments than in the case of legislation. If the Democrats pass a bad bill, the Republicans can always repeal it next year. But if Obama puts, e.g., Dawn Johnsen on the Supreme Court, Johnsen could still be on that court 40 years from now. (Perhaps there was, in the past, no tradition of filibustering judicial nominees precisely because the judiciary had not acquired the level of power it has in today’s system. It’s more important now than it was 200 years ago to work to make sure that a judicial nominee has an intelligent and defensible understanding of the Constitution.)