I'm curious to get the author's take on Matt Yglesias' "The solution to Joe Manchin's concerns is to ditch the filibuster" article. It's older, but he continues to talk about the power a centrist offshoot party of Golden/MGP/Murkowski would have at setting agendas.
The author's strategy fundamentally takes a defensive position to radicalism. Wouldn't it be nice if centrism could take the lead? Congress can pass bipartisan initiatives, but the incentive (unless you can hit the 60 vote threshold) is to stick to your own team. That's rare. Why can't Murkowski (and formerly Manchin) say "I'm willing to do X for permitting/democracy/child tax credits/COVID relief/etc. and no more, if you find 50 other congress members that agree I'll be the passing vote"? There will be times when they are more than 51 and a more extreme agenda would be passed, but they can get fixed if the party oversteps and gets voted out.
With the filibuster we don't get governance, which leads to more radical solutions from the executive and judicial branches. Centrism shouldn't just be halting bad ideas, but promoting and executing on good ones too.
I’m actually more skeptical of the claim the filibuster is good for moderation. Majorities should be able to govern the country without arcane rules mandating that they get 60 votes or comply with reconciliation and also force weird calvinball executive action and judicial system fights into the center of politics.
The majority governs and is judged for it seems far more likely to produce middle of the road results over the long haul than needing a constant set of Hail Mary moves.
I'm curious to get the author's take on Matt Yglesias' "The solution to Joe Manchin's concerns is to ditch the filibuster" article. It's older, but he continues to talk about the power a centrist offshoot party of Golden/MGP/Murkowski would have at setting agendas.
The author's strategy fundamentally takes a defensive position to radicalism. Wouldn't it be nice if centrism could take the lead? Congress can pass bipartisan initiatives, but the incentive (unless you can hit the 60 vote threshold) is to stick to your own team. That's rare. Why can't Murkowski (and formerly Manchin) say "I'm willing to do X for permitting/democracy/child tax credits/COVID relief/etc. and no more, if you find 50 other congress members that agree I'll be the passing vote"? There will be times when they are more than 51 and a more extreme agenda would be passed, but they can get fixed if the party oversteps and gets voted out.
With the filibuster we don't get governance, which leads to more radical solutions from the executive and judicial branches. Centrism shouldn't just be halting bad ideas, but promoting and executing on good ones too.
For reference, article is linked here: https://www.slowboring.com/p/manchin-filibuster
Centrists on offense!
You’re ignoring the new reality, armed Trumpers threatening physical violence unless Senator complies..
I’m actually more skeptical of the claim the filibuster is good for moderation. Majorities should be able to govern the country without arcane rules mandating that they get 60 votes or comply with reconciliation and also force weird calvinball executive action and judicial system fights into the center of politics.
The majority governs and is judged for it seems far more likely to produce middle of the road results over the long haul than needing a constant set of Hail Mary moves.