Conservatives might be tempted to curtail minority rights for supposedly conservative policies, but that’s playing with fire. Any short-term political gain from undoing the filibuster comes at long-term expense. Making the Senate more efficient might get a few bills to the president’s desk this year, but at the risk of accelerating our devolution into a European-style winner-take-all system. Oh, and by the way, President Obama would veto these conservative bills anyway.
The filibuster is an outgrowth of the Founders’ vision of two distinct, complementary legislative bodies. The House is built for offense. It closely reflects public opinion with a two-year term. The Senate is built for defense. It exists to cool the popular passions of the House, and to serve as a brake on a too-powerful executive.
The Senate is not superior to the House, but it is different. Without the filibuster, the gap between House and Senate diminishes and with it our constitutional safeguards.
Rather than abandon the filibuster, conservatives should understand that deliberative debate exists to protect the Constitution, and preserve the nation’s fundamentally conservative principles. We reject the notion that Washington can manage all of life’s challenges. We dismiss the fantasy that we are only one election or one strongman away from solving life’s problems by power politics.
We should embrace debate. We should celebrate limited government. We should seek to persuade. And we should use the floors of Congress in 2016 to tell the American people what we would pursue if they send a Republican to the White House in November.Sasse has raised serious questions about Trump.
Tweets for Trump:
.@realDonaldTrump Do you agree that exec unilateralism is very bad? Because you talk A LOT about “running the country” as though… (cont)