Matt on the filibuster

Link here

So good on Rep Jay Inslee (D-WA) for speaking out:

The filibuster is so undemocratic it just defies defense. Particularly, as you said, it used to be this once-in-a-generation regional conflict issue that’s meant to protect the regions that has now prevented majority rule in this country. It’s a huge, insidious problem. I have to tell you in my conversations with senators, including in our party, I’ve gotten nowhere on this issue. When they get into that fine institution, they kind of like the idea one person can stop the entire country dead on its heels to keep a post office open in Schmuckbucket or wherever. I have to tell you, I’m very frustrated by it.

Francois' response: I think that one can make reasonable arguments against the filibuster, but this isn't one of them. Maybe it's just because I'm a conservative, but I don't like the idea of 50% +1 making major changes to this country, and I feel that way even when it's something I support. If you can't get a mere 60% support, don't try to make a big change. I happen to think that major, major legislation should be broadly supported by the public. Currently the health care bill is supported by 35% according to one poll, and more optimistic polls say 50%. And Democrats say that ramming the bill through by one or two votes would be democratic?

One thing that I wouldn't mind seeing changed, and this is inspired by a fantasy novel that I don't remember, is that filibusters could be limited only to such major changes. The trick would be finding as objective a way as possible to determine what's major and what's not. In the novel, two councilmen could demand a supermajority if a matter was deemed to be of major importance, but since politicians in the real world tend to be very loose about their morals, you'd have Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller calling cutting spending on a statue in Podunk, WV a "question of major importance".

But let's just dispense with this foolishness about the filibuster being undemocratic. Democracies don't exist to let slim majorities make major changes against the adamant opposition of the 49%. they exist to protect our rights. Liberals need to remember what our Constitution is for: it's to protect our liberties, not to deliver social services. Social services are the cherry on top. If your new program isn't supported by a broad majority, stuff the new program.