“Abolish the filibuster,” tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on June 2.
AOC’s tweet was a direct response to President Biden’s tweet earlier the same day, “We’re witnessing an all-out assault on our democracy — and we need to act swiftly to protect the sacred right to vote. We need the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.”
Biden’s hyperbolic tweet was in reference to the fact that a few states have passed election integrity laws since the chaotic 2020 election, which could threaten the left’s electoral strategy of mass mail-in ballots, no identification verification, no signature confirmation, ballot harvesting, same day voter registration, and all other forms of voter fraud.
However, in order to fulfill their dream of federalizing the state-based election system, the left must convince Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) to get on board with their scheme.
And needless to say, the odds of Manchin succumbing to the political pressure and voting to abolish the filibuster so that the left can cram down their so-called voting rights legislation is about as likely as the Biden administration reversing course on the Keystone XL pipeline.
In late May, during an interview with CNN, Manchin made it crystal clear where he stands on abolishing the age-old filibuster. According to Manchin, “I'm not ready to destroy our government, no.”
He added, “This is the long game, not the short game. ... The Senate is very deliberate.”
Bravo to the bold and brave Joe Manchin.
However, Manchin’s recalcitrance to forgo the filibuster could make for a very heated battle this summer over the future of how the U.S. Senate functions for the foreseeable future.
In other words, the Democratic Party is in the midst of an intraparty scuffle that could have far-reaching consequences concerning the federal legislative process, which has worked well for only the past 232 years.
Yet, that is exactly what the so-called twenty-first century progressives want to do. They want to upend the upper chamber of the legislative branch so it becomes a mirror of the House of Representatives, wherein a simple majority (or in this case a 50-50 split with Vice President Harris casting the tie-breaking vote) is all that is required to pass bills.
Make no mistake, this is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned for the U.S. Senate. Yet, it follows the progressive playbook of the past century to a tee.
Consider. In the early twentieth century, the so-called progressives instituted several measures, such as the Seventeenth Amendment, which upended many of the bedrock principles our Founding Fathers believed were integral to the preservation of limited, representative government.
Many of the Progressive era laws also undermined notions of federalism, separation of powers, and the system of checks and balances.
As would the new progressive push for the elimination of the filibuster.
In reality, the Progressive era of the early 1900s and the resurgent progressive push from the likes of AOC to President Biden really represents one thing and one thing only: more centralized power.
As President Woodrow Wilson, the preeminent progressive of his day once said, “We are impatient of state legislatures because they seem to us less representative of the thoughtful opinion of the country than Congress is.”
In simple terms, Wilson’s sentiment was wrong then and remains wrong today. Congress is not the be all end all. The states, more specifically state legislatures, which are closest to the people, are far more responsive to the will of the people.
With that being said, I hope Sen. Joe Manchin remains stout in his opposition to the elimination of the filibuster. He literally could be the last bulwark against the progressive’s long-sought dream of an overwhelming federal government that micromanages elections in the near-future and who knows what else over the long-term.
For once the filibuster is gone, there is almost nothing that would be free from federal government overreach.
Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org) is senior editor at The Heartland Institute.