The Democrats’ Filibuster Flip-Flop: A Tale of Hypocrisy and Political Expediency

Dace Potas, a USA TODAY opinion columnist, dives into the recent uproar within the Democratic Party regarding Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to allow a Republican-led spending bill to advance, averting a government shutdown. The decision has sparked anger among some Democrats, who believe Schumer should have used the filibuster to block the bill. This outcry, Potas argues, exposes a significant hypocrisy within the party regarding the filibuster, a legislative tool they have frequently criticized and even called for its abolition.

The core of the issue lies in the Senate’s 60-vote threshold required to end debate on most legislation, including funding bills. Without the cooperation of Schumer and a few other Democrats, Republicans wouldn’t have been able to overcome a potential filibuster. Schumer’s decision effectively allowed the bill to proceed to a final vote, preventing a government shutdown.

Many Democrats are furious, feeling betrayed by their leadership. They believe Schumer should have used the filibuster to stall the bill, hindering the Trump administration’s agenda. This sentiment reveals a striking shift in the Democratic Party’s stance on the filibuster.

Potas points out that just a short time ago, during Joe Biden’s presidency, many Democrats vehemently argued for the elimination of the filibuster. They characterized it as an archaic relic of the Jim Crow era, an undemocratic obstruction hindering progress and perpetuating inequality. Suddenly, these same Democrats are now lamenting the fact that their leader didn’t employ this very tool to force a government shutdown.

The author highlights the irony, stating, "As it turns out, Democrats never actually thought that the filibuster was evil, racist or oppressive. Even the most outspoken Democrats against the filibuster suddenly have no problem with it once they are in the minority." This observation underscores the opportunistic nature of political maneuvering, where principles often take a backseat to political expediency.

Potas suggests that Schumer’s decision was driven by a calculated assessment of the political landscape. He understood that a government shutdown would likely be blamed on the Democrats, regardless of the underlying reasons. The optics of a shutdown, with its potential negative consequences for the economy and public services, would be far more damaging to the party than allowing the Republican-backed funding bill to pass.

Furthermore, Potas argues that Democrats are currently best positioned to portray themselves as the responsible adults in the room, offering stability in contrast to what they perceive as the chaotic nature of the Trump administration. Forcing a government shutdown would undermine this narrative and allow Republicans to claim they are governing effectively.

The article highlights the vindication of former Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who left the Democratic Party due to her unwavering support for the filibuster. Sinema, now an independent, has publicly highlighted the hypocrisy of her former colleagues, pointing to their contradictory stances on the legislative tool.

Potas doesn’t spare Republicans from criticism either, suggesting that they too are susceptible to hypocrisy. He notes that the GOP is only "one Trump outburst away from complaining about the filibuster themselves," completing a cycle of political convenience. The author argues that neither party can claim moral superiority when it comes to adhering to norms and institutions.

The author concludes that Democrats who are critical of Schumer’s decision should consider the bigger picture. They must ask themselves whether they are better off defending a shutdown or allowing the Republicans to pass their funding resolution. Ultimately, Potas believes that keeping the government open is the more politically advantageous path for the Democrats, even if it means swallowing some bitter pills. The author’s perspective is that the potential for Democrats to paint themselves as the reasonable, stable alternative is too valuable to risk on the volatile and unpredictable consequences of a government shutdown. The framing of the situation is crucial, and forcing a shutdown would allow Republicans to paint the Democrats as obstructing governance and unfit for power. This, the author suggests, is a risk too great to take. The Democrats’ best strategy, therefore, is to allow the Republicans to govern, highlighting any perceived shortcomings or excesses while maintaining a posture of responsible opposition.