By Fred Bauer
Wednesday, October 22, 2025
Over the past day or so, the so-called nuclear option for
the legislative filibuster has enjoyed yet another boomlet in coverage. Some Republicans have mused about detonating the option to
break a Democratic filibuster and “reopen” the federal government. However,
nuking the filibuster to reopen the government — with just a simple majority in
the Senate — would be a self-imposed strategic debacle for Republicans. By
doing away with the filibuster here, Republican senators would be surrendering
their own powers in perpetuity while giving Democrats their preferred off-ramp
for the current government shutdown.
This isn’t eight-dimensional chess. For weeks now, progressive influencers have been calling on Republicans to
nuke the filibuster and end the government shutdown. They want that to happen
for a variety of reasons. In 2021 and 2022, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema took
the heat for blocking the nuclear option. That spared those Democratic senators
with some institutionalist impulses (such as Delaware Senator Chris Coons) from
having to disappoint progressive activists by opposing the nuclear option
themselves. In a future Democratic Senate majority, the Manchin–Sinema heat
shield would be gone. Maine independent Angus King would probably very much
like not to be the deciding vote on nuking the filibuster. If
Republicans nuke the filibuster now and create that precedent, they end up
sparing the Democratic caucus from facing that uncomfortable discussion. A
post-nuclear Senate would toss the keys to “the groups.” If there’s any
uncertainty about whether every Senate Democrat is really on board with that
agenda, it’s far better from progressive activists’ perspectives that
Republicans nuke the Senate for them. (And, as Joe Manchin recognized years ago, there is no such thing as a limited
“carve-out” via the nuclear option — any “carve-out” puts the whole bird on the
table.)
Further, Republicans’ nuking of the filibuster would also
be a tactical win for Senate Democrats. Right now, the government remains shut
down until enough Senate Democrats come to the table to negotiate. However, the
activist base of the party does not want any negotiations with Republicans;
they want full-spectrum opposition. This puts Senate Democrats in a tough
position: Either keep the government shut down (and thus give the White House
increased leverage in determining federal spending), or frustrate the inflatable-clad legions. Seen in that light, the nuclear
option on the filibuster would allow Democrats to have their cake and eat it,
too. They would get to both engage in performative opposition to Republican
governance and see the government reopen.
Nor is it at all clear that the present shutdown has been
a drag on President Trump, whose net approval rating has edged up since the beginning of the
month. His administration has often prioritized flexing the muscles of
executive power, and this shutdown has given Office of Management and Budget
Director Russ Vought even more latitude in trimming the federal
bureaucracy. Trump has often portrayed himself as a disruptor against a
sclerotic Washington establishment, and a Democratic-led shutdown only
reinforces that message.
There are, of course, sound constitutional reasons for preferring the survival of
the legislative filibuster (as well as regular order in the Senate more
generally). The filibuster helps ensure congressional independence from the
executive. By frustrating the absolute rule of narrow majorities, the filibuster
helps preserve federalism and prevents a centralization of power that could
imperil American political stability. But constitutional prudence often needs
partisan interest to give it force. In the case of the government shutdown,
Republicans also have many political incentives to keep their fingers far away
from the shiny red button.
No comments:
Post a Comment