I had a couple of responses to this story from a couple of days ago (via CNN): Trump calls for end of Senate filibuster to break funding stalemate.
President Donald Trump on Thursday urged congressional Republicans to unilaterally end the government shutdown by eliminating the Senate filibuster — urging them to take an unprecedented step that GOP leaders have firmly opposed until now.
“It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
The first is that it will never not be ridiculous that he tries to govern and communicate via social media.
The second is that this is a very rare case wherein I agree with Trump, although not for the same reasons. I think, and have argued before (I think in some comments, but perhaps elsewhere), that the Democrats should have been insisting from day one of the shutdown that the GOP has to go nuclear. It would clarify responsibility for the policy outcomes (laying them at the feet of the Republicans, as the majority party) and increase, to some degree at least, democratic feedback in the system. As it stands, if the Democrats vote to reopen, it is possible for voters to see them as mutually responsible for whatever policies flow from the open government. That muddies the waters of who to blame, which is an ongoing problem in our politics.
The third is that Trump is admitting, deep down, who has the real power, and therefore the responsibility, over the shutdown and the consequences. While it is true that Democrats are currently holding up the CR by not giving the Republicans the handful of votes they need to pass the Senate under the current rules, the reality is that the Republicans have had the power to reopen the government the entire time, but are simply choosing not to use it.
Nonetheless, many Republicans oppose this course of action. Via NBC News: Trump’s push to abolish the Senate filibuster hits immediate Republican resistance.
“Leader Thune’s position on the importance of the legislative filibuster is unchanged,” Thune spokesman Ryan Wrasse said Friday.
A spokesperson for Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said: “Senator Barrasso’s support of the filibuster is unchanged.”
Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, posted on X on Friday that he was a “firm no” on getting rid of the filibuster.
“The filibuster forces us to find common ground in the Senate,” Curtis said, referring to a headline about Trump’s comments. “Power changes hands, but principles shouldn’t. I’m a firm no on eliminating it.”
I hate to tell Senator Curtis, but that tired cliche is utterly wrong.
What compromise is the current filibuster producing, pray do tell? What have the Republicans offered the Democrats to get their votes? Last I saw, it was bupkis. This filibuster is by no means forcing anyone to find common ground. It is a minority veto that rarely induces any kind of compromise or negotiation.
But let me stress again: the ultimate power over whether the government opens or not is in the hands of the Republicans. It is as if the door has two locks, and the Democrats are refusing to insert their key and so the Republicans are mad at the Democrats for not helping them open the door, while all the while they have their own second key in a safe deposit box in a bank across town, but don’t want to get in the car and go get it. Yes, the Democrats could put their key in the door, but with a little effort, the Republicans could open in without the Democrats’ key.
Yes, it would be easier for the Republicans if the Democrats used their key, but it is not the only way to open the door.
Meanwhile, the Democrats only have the one key and cannot do anything by themselves.
So, who has the power?
And if the Republicans want the easier option, then offer the Democrats something to induce them to use their key, as Senator Curtis seems to think all of this works.
It makes all the mewling about the “Democrat shutdown” at various podiums across DC to be more than a bit disingenuous (to put it mildly).
Just because the Republicans don’t want to go that route doesn’t mean that route does not exist.
This is also a good example of how the complexity of American government obscures which politicians are doing what, making it harder for voters to know where to assign responsibility. And the press goes along because it is easier to just say “Democrats are refusing to vote to open the government” than to explain the cloture rule and the nuclear option (assuming that the reporters themselves even understand it).
