In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
In an interview with MAGA podcaster Benny Johnson, Vice President JD Vance says, “I would bet every dollar that I own that the next time the Democrats have control of the Senate, they will break the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, and destroy this country. We have to do it now in order to save the country.”
That’s a risky wager. We have no clue what the political future holds.
Well, that’s not exactly right. We know that both parties will warn us with great certainty that the other side will definitely “break the filibuster” when they get a chance and cram through all kinds of destructive policy with a bare majority. We’ve heard this for decades.
And, indeed, majoritarian federal overreach is bad. Which is why the “zombie” filibuster, requiring a 60-vote threshold to stop debate without senators having to physically hold the floor, is so vital to preserve.
Vance, who refers to the filibuster as an “archaic rule,” reminds us that only two senators, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, saved the filibuster the last time Democrats held both houses and the presidency.
Maybe. It’s also possible that other Democrats were uneasy about the idea but were given political cover by Manchin and Sinema. Even if that wasn’t the case, to win back the Senate, Democrats will need seats in centrist, purplish states. Those politicians may be less prone to filibuster-busting than we think, especially if the proposal includes packing the Supreme Court, a widely unpopular idea.
Of course, if the Republicans preemptively destroy the filibuster, Democrats can sweep over the political landscape without having to debate the rule changes or pay any political price. Almost surely, one of the Left’s first targets, if not the first, will be overturning the SAVE America Act.
It’s certainly not unreasonable to worry that Democrats might shelve the legislative filibuster. In 2013, then-Senate leader Harry Reid, who believed that Democrats would be in perpetual power, pulled the nuclear option on judicial filibuster. Though most Americans probably couldn’t tell you what pressing nomination prompted Reid to act. On the other hand, they could probably tell you that the Democrats lost the Supreme Court for a generation.
Consider the lesson.
It’s improbable that any GOP Senate, which typically holds a majority with a handful of wishy-washy centrists, will pass any momentous national reforms with their narrow margins. Conservatives are by disposition less inclined toward federal activism and control. Progressives are not. Greasing the wheels for them makes little sense.
And, no, the SAVE America Act isn’t worth it. Many Republicans seem to function under the misguided notion that the SAVE America Act will magically inhibit Democrats from winning more national elections. Don’t get me wrong, showing an ID before voting is a perfectly reasonable ask of citizens. It’s the norm in virtually every properly functioning democratic nation. There’s no evidence, however, that a single House, much less Senate race, has been stolen by illegal immigrants — or anything approaching it. Passing the Save America Act won’t change the dynamics of races in the foreseeable future.
What’s clear is that Republicans want to give the base a tangible political win before the midterm elections. Yes, the SAVE America Act’s provisions are popular. The GOP has interpreted this to mean voters are clamoring for legislation. In virtually every poll, there are a host of issues that rank far ahead of ID voting, mostly revolving around the economy and affordability. If Vance is worried about the GOP’s prospects in 2026 and 2028, he’d be imploring President Donald Trump to pull back on the import taxes he unilaterally imposed on the public. Speaking of archaic, tariffs are one of the president’s most retrograde and unpopular policies.
Senators, who’ve long abdicated their proper roles, should be retaking their constitutional power to levy taxes, not looking for ways to create a more direct democracy.
Although it’s refreshing to hear Vance talk about efforts to “break” the filibuster, honestly. Many Republicans do not. They pettifog the issue and gaslight voters, arguing that they are merely preserving the traditional role of the filibuster by making Democrats debate and hold the floor. The rule-making minutiae are irrelevant, a distraction, from the fact that many in MAGA want the 60-vote threshold to stop debate from being circumvented after it expires. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be doing any of this.
I suppose that the deliberative nature of the Senate is also viewed as “archaic.” But the “zombie” filibuster, which restrains the Senate, is basically the only mechanism upholding any semblance of federalism. The inability to come to agreements is the organic manifestation of the state of the divided nation. This is surely frustrating for those in power. And it is definitely frustrating for voters who’ve been conditioned to believe that winning 51% of votes gives their party a magical “mandate” to do what they like.
Once the filibuster is broken, it will be broken forever. From then on, flimsy and narrow majorities will cram through national reform bills every time Washington changes hands. The country will be in endless political turmoil until it completely frays.
A few years before the “zombie filibuster” was instituted, Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats created a massive federal welfare state that is still standing. Now, conjure up a counterhistory of the first two years of both the Obama and Biden administrations, and imagine what it looks like without the legislative filibuster.
DEMOCRATS OPPOSE ICE ITSELF, NOT ABUSES OR OVERREACH
The only prediction I can offer with some certitude is that most partisans arguing to break the filibuster to save democracy will shift their position as soon as the balance of power changes. That’s been going on for decades, as well.
But, as trade-offs go, saving the rule is likely to do more good for the country in the long term than killing it to pass the SAVE America Act.
