Democrats have everything to lose if they abolish the filibuster

Democrats should not abolish the filibuster as it gives moderate Democrats a veto over the Republican legislative program, and has historically served their interests in the long run by allowing them to pass liberal legislation that reshapes American society.

As the 2024 elections approach, Democratic senators and Senate candidates from across the ideological spectrum have called for the abolition of the filibuster. They believe that many of the proposals they care about most have no chance of getting the 60 votes they would need to overcome a Republican filibuster. 

When it comes to some issues, like creating a national right to abortion, they are probably right. But Democrats should not abolish the filibuster. It would harm their own political and policy interests. 

In the last 100 years, Republicans have not once held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. They have not even gotten close since the early 1920s. For the foreseeable future, the filibuster gives moderate Democrats a veto over the Republican legislative program.

Republicans can make some headway through the presidency and the courts, but the most far-reaching and durable changes to American society, such as the New Deal and the Civil Rights Acts, have always come through legislation. Thanks to the filibuster, Republicans cannot make such changes without at least some Democratic support.

It is no accident that many of the issues that most animate Democratic efforts to abolish the filibuster — abortion, gun control and election rules — target policies that are mostly handled at the state level. This is because congressional Republicans do not have many accomplishments worth undoing.

In the 21st century, Republicans have only accomplished two things through the legislative process: tax cuts and a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Both of these were possible because of exemptions to the filibuster. Republicans passed both the Bush and Trump tax cuts as budget reconciliation bills, which cannot be filibustered. They likewise confirmed Trump’s three Supreme Court nominees under another exemption from the filibuster. Senate Democrats created an exemption for all presidential nominees other than Supreme Court nominees in 2013. In 2017, Republicans predictably extended that precedent to apply to Supreme Court nominees as well.

Democrats have done far better under the filibuster. While it may frustrate their efforts in the short run, it has generally served their interests in the long run. Democrats won filibuster-proof majorities in the 1930s under President Roosevelt, in the 1960s under President Johnson, from 1975-1978 against President Ford and with President Carter, and, most recently, from 2009-2010 under President Obama. The filibuster has helped much of the liberal legislation passed during these windows to survive spirited Republican repeal efforts.

The filibuster has created a characteristic pattern of federal policy change. Democrats periodically win huge majorities that allow them to pass liberal legislation that reshapes American society. Their majority soon shrinks, the window of opportunity closes, and they spend the ensuing decades consolidating their gains and setting a new agenda.

Republicans cannot reverse the Democratic achievements because of the filibuster. Eventually, the public grows accustomed to the liberal policies — Social Security, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act — to the point that they take them for granted. The conversation shifts from Republican efforts to repeal them to debates over how to make them operate well. Then, eventually, the Democrats win another huge majority, and the cycle starts anew.

There are two logical reasons Democrats might want to destroy this system that has done so well for them, but neither stands up to closer scrutiny.

First, Democrats might imagine that if they could just run the country without Republican interference for a couple years, voters would like what they saw and unite to make the Democrats a permanent majority. That did not happen the last time Democrats were able to legislate without Republican support; voters responded to the Democratic accomplishments of 2009-2010 by throwing Democrats out of office in record numbers.

Even if the Democrats were able to pass laws that buried the current incarnation of the Republican Party for a decade or two, sooner or later conservatives would reform and regroup. Democrats would then have to face this new conservative coalition — perhaps a multiethnic working-class movement based on national conservatism, freed from the liability of being associated with Donald Trump — without the protections afforded by the filibuster.

Second, it would make sense to kill the filibuster if Democrats thought Republicans would do it as soon as they got the chance. But they won’t. Senate Republicans have too many hardliners who rely on the filibuster to get their way from leadership and too many moderates who are frightened of what their party would do if they could pass bills by a simple majority. 

So the filibuster is here to stay, as long as Senate Democrats leave it alone. They should.

Christian Fong is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan. He specializes in the study of the U.S. Congress. His peer-reviewed scientific papers include “Anticipating the Consequences of Filibuster Reform,” “Rules and the Containment of Interpersonal Conflict in Congress,” and “Limited Obstruction.”