By Philip Klein
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
Vice President Kamala Harris told Wisconsin Public Radio: “I think we should eliminate
the filibuster for Roe.”
By doing so, Harris has made clear that the only way to
preserve the filibuster is to make sure that if she is in the White House,
there is a Republican Senate.
Since the Obama administration, there has been mounting
pressure on Democrats to do away with the filibuster from progressives
frustrated with the limits the current system places on their ability to enact
sweeping changes when in power. (When Republicans are in power, Democrats tend
to embrace the filibuster, as Harris herself did in a 2017 letter.) While the cause has gained more support among
Democrats, President Biden has had reservations about doing away with it, and
Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have been standing in the way. So it
has endured.
But with Manchin and Sinema leaving the Senate, were
Harris to be elected and push to eliminate the filibuster to codify late-stage
abortion on demand nationally, it’s hard to see who among Democrats would be
standing in the way.
It’s theoretically possible that were he elected, Donald
Trump could push Republican senators to abandon the filibuster. But within the
Republican caucus there is a sufficient number of conservatives who understand
that over time, making it easier to get legislation through the Senate is more
helpful for the left-wing agenda. There is clearly not the momentum to do away
with the filibuster compared with on the Democratic side. Republicans already
had a slim majority in the Senate with Trump as president and they did not
choose to nuke it.
Were Harris to eliminate the filibuster for Roe it
would also make it much easier for Democrats to pass a far-left-wing agenda on
areas outside of abortion — tax hikes, socialized health insurance, gun bans,
price controls, etc.
This announcement makes the “conservative case for
Harris” argument even more difficult to swallow. That argument rests on the
premise that Harris will preserve norms and that Republicans will be able to
block the most radical parts of her agenda in the Senate. But this news
obliterates both of these premises.
First, somebody who is running on nuking the filibuster
should not be trusted as a guardian of norms. Second, if the filibuster is
gone, Republicans would have little means by which to block the radical
elements of her agenda.
At a minimum, anybody still making a “conservative case
for Harris” argument after the filibuster news should be arguing just as
passionately for a Republican takeover of the Senate.
No comments:
Post a Comment