Something wicked this way comes. A fear that was once far-fetched is now looking increasingly plausible, even likely: that Senate Republicans will blow the filibuster to end the government shutdown.
It would be the final nuclear option, removing the last major obstacle to single-party rule in Washington.
By removing the 60-vote threshold for majority Senate votes, the current Republican majority – and future Senate majorities of any party – would have the right to pursue their own agenda without consulting the other party.
Despite the dangers, Republicans are openly entertaining it. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said last week That he “doesn’t want to see children starve in my state over some Senate process…” and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.). Said to end filibuster“If we can’t do anything, that’s all [Democrats] They are going to use force.”
There are three reasons why this scenario becomes likely. First, the Democrats have no leverage. In any negotiation, leverage only exists if the other side wants something, and President Trump does not place much importance on reopening the government. For them, the shutdown is an opportunity to take unilateral action, fire government employees, and save money. That’s why he has said he will not negotiate until Democrats pass a continuing resolution to end the shutdown.
Second, Democratic leaders view retreat as politically impossible. The far left already views him as incapable of standing up to Trump, and they can’t bear the notion of losing this impasse as midterm season begins. That’s why Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has broken with long-standing practice by refusing to accept a clean continuing resolution, potentially creating the same conditions that give rise to his worst nightmare: Republicans ending the shutdown on their own terms.
Third, the real-world effects of the shutdown are going to be worse. State and local programs like food assistance and public health clinics will begin to close. The broader economy will suffer. And with the issue of Affordable Care Act subsidies unresolved, millions of people will see higher premiums or disrupted coverage once open enrollment begins.
As that happens, public pressure on the Senate will increase, and the nuclear option may feel like the path of least resistance to Republican leaders.
For his part, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R.S.D.) swore back in january That he will preserve the filibuster during his term. But notably, he has yet to reiterate that pledge during the shutdown. Trump has also been silent so far, but we know him Pressured Republicans to remove the filibuster During his first term and the Senate Republicans have prepared him to make the same demand againHe may soon get his excuse.
But adopting nuclear energy would have devastating and lasting consequences. Once it is removed, no party will have any incentive to re-introduce it while in power.
The filibuster exists to force the Senate to be what it was intended to be: a deliberative body, the greatest in the world. Abolishing it would destroy the last guardrail that forces compromise and restrains each party’s worst impulses. Even a narrow step to end this shutdown would set a precedent that would be used by future majorities — Democratic or Republican — to enact broader legislation. The resulting policy actions will take our citizens further down a path of division and anger.
So how do we avoid disaster? We need a Hail Mary play from bipartisan leaders with courage and conviction.
This could start with a coalition of Republican senators and pragmatic House Democrats who have not staked their reputations on an all-or-nothing shutdown fight — leaders like Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, and commonsense House Democrats like Representative Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.).
Think about the infrastructure deal in 2021: A bipartisan group worked in advance to shape the deal as an alternative to Build Back Better, and they were ready to pursue it when all else failed.
We also need this now – a group to begin preparing a credible agreement to reopen the government, even if it now appears there is no appetite for it. Thus, when public pressure is at its peak and lawmakers feel the heat, resorting to nuclear energy will not appear to be the only solution.
Of course, any deal will require compromise. This would mean that neither side would be able to completely “win” this battle. But it would also mean that America would not lose by making a permanent and irreparable mistake. And shouldn’t this be the goal of both parties?
Nancy Jacobson is the founder and CEO of no label,
