This whole process was the epitome of anti-democratic principles by design: the Senate is expressly an anti-democratic institution (wildly different levels of representation/power for different voters in different states), and the whole standoff centered on protecting the filibuster, which makes the anti-democratic senate even less democratic by allowing a tiny group within that tiny group to shut down the entire lawmaking process.
It's exactly what the founders, who all read Plato's Republic and its warnings about republics devolving into democracy, wanted.
Hard disagree, I think time has proven that the filibuster (or some process like it) is necessary as a stabilizing effect on democracy. Making legislation easier to block than pass makes it so that small swings in representation, say 51-49 to 49-51 can't produce massive swings in policy. The minority party being able to, with effort, stop certain pieces of legislation they find abhorrent by raising the bar to it passing is a good thing.
The Veto is also profoundly undemocratic in exactly the same direction and it's also a good thing.
It hasn't done a good job stabilizing for decades in this case. The power of the people was stripped unilaterally and none of these mechanisms stopped it.
Not clear on what we’re disagreeing about: yes, anti democratic mechanisms have a stabilizing effect on democracy. They accomplish this by thwarting democracy.
I’m not saying whether it’s good or bad, it is what it is, but these anti-democratic mechanisms are intentional.
The Senate is already an antidemocratic brake/stabilizer. Adding a brake to it is stultifying.
> so that small swings in representation, say 51-49 to 49-51 can't produce massive swings in policy
Exactly, and this is bad. Voters should all know that every vote matters. The current setup creates the false impression that both parties would fundamentally steer the ship the same way ("uniparty"). The path to a government that is more responsive to the needs of citizens involves allowing winning parties to actually govern.
I would argue that we want a more responsive, dynamic government that attempts to represent us. The filibuster is in direct direct opposition to all of that.
The GOP won the last national elections. They should be allowed to end SNAP, ACA, EPA, Labor Dept, NSF, Dept. of Education, FDA, all science grants, Medicaid, put armed military checkpoints on every city block, end legal immigration, and zero out federal funding to any school that is closed on the federal MLK Jr holiday[1]. (And to the extent that those things are not legal now, they have the votes to make them legal.)
And then in '26 and '28, voters should decide whether they agree with that vision for how the country should be run.
The result will be a much more responsive, dynamic system where Congress cares more about what we voters think.
1 - taken loosely from the 2024 GOP party platform and administration statements from this year
> The result will be a much more responsive, dynamic system where Congress cares more about what we voters think.
Or an overwhelming switch the other direction, just as chaotic and unpopular, continuing to swing back and forth every four years.
Who knows, maybe the overreach of the current party in power (even though "won the last national elections" meaning less than 50% of the cast vote, but that's another discussion) will cause a swing the other direction so hard that the opposition party gains a supermajority in congress. Things will be more stable in that case, if not universally popular, because well-crafted legislation is a good bit harder to reverse than executive orders.
It's exactly what the founders, who all read Plato's Republic and its warnings about republics devolving into democracy, wanted.