Without mutually assured destruction, I cannot see the filibuster surviving.
Senator Mitch McConnell warned yesterday that if Democrats abolish the filibuster, Republicans would take advantage when they regain the majority. He listed right-to-work legislation, defunding of Planned Parenthood, and concealed-carry reciprocity as some items that a majority-Republican Senate would pass.
I’m reminded of the famous interrogation scene from The Dark Knight. As Batman subjects him to an increasingly brutal beating, the Joker laughs it off: “You have nothing – nothing to threaten me with.”
For as much as Democrats may detest Mitch McConnell’s agenda, they know that none of the items he listed would be necessarily permanent. None would fundamentally restructure the political order. Democrats could simply repeal them when they are back in power, just as they will soon probably repeal Paul Ryan’s corporate tax cut.
Potential legislation must seem long-lasting and transformative if it is to function as a genuine threat, but here Democrats have the advantage. They have policy options that fit the “long-lasting and transformative” criteria, while Republicans have no comparable threats to wield. If the filibuster ends, destruction is not mutually assured.
The most obvious policy option for Democrats is mass immigration — achieved through legislation such as the Menendez bill, which would legalize nearly every illegal immigrant, hamstring enforcement, and increase annual green cards. Republicans returned to power could try to restrict the future flow, but citizenship once bestowed cannot be withdrawn. The people whom Democrats let in can stay here permanently, and more immigration means more Democrats. By contrast, there is no rival immigration plan that would recruit large numbers of Republican voters to the U.S. It is hard to imagine what such a plan would even look like.
A second option for Democrats is adding states, since there is no practical way to expel a state once it joins. Granting statehood to the District of Columbia receives the most attention, but Democrats need not stop there. Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are all attractive places to host two U.S. senators. Democratic Party dominance would be guaranteed in DC and likely in the other new states. In response, Republicans could try some state-splitting shenanigans — e.g., turning Texas into five states. The problem is that changing state borders is logistically harder and more transparently political than simply granting statehood to a territory.
Without mutually assured destruction, I cannot see the filibuster surviving. If Republicans want to keep it, they need to come up with a legislative threat that is much scarier to Democrats than defunding Planned Parenthood. To that end, back in January Senator Mike Lee offered a longer list of Republican priorities for a filibuster-less Senate. Some are promising, such as vouchers to break up the public-school monopoly, but none approach the level of permanence and transformation that Democrats have at their disposal.