What I would actually LOVE to see regarding improving bipartisanship is to 1) eliminate the filibuster and 2) add a new rule that demands bipartisanship. Let’s say 5 (I’m just giving a random number here) senators from an opposing party are required to sign on to any given bill in order to pass. Meaning, they could still have a few senators of their own party vote no, but if they can get senators of other party to vote yes, they can get the bill passed.
I think it may take a little while to get the ball rolling on something like that, since our politics have become so calcified. But if the senate is as adaptive as Gabe claims they are, I think they’d eventually do just that, adapt.
I agree with you entirely. I did not mean to imply it would address the wildly inappropriate senate confirmations. That I believe needs a totally separate process.
We do not need two Houses, so if it becomes a total houseification, then we might as well eliminate one chamber and save the money. It's absurd if they think the voters will be fine with duplicate dysfunctional chambers. Either one is the brake pedal, or it's no longer useful.
I would love if we could have some good old fashioned Tip O'Neil/Ronald Reagan comradery, but alas, when folks like Lisa Murkowski (who would be an obvious hope as a member of this panel as a moderate member of the right) are out there saying publicly that 'retaliation from Trump is real,' it feels naive to think that there are Republicans that would stand with Democrats against the president on anything. One need only recall the Republicans killing the bipartisan Biden immigration bill because Trump wanted to run on border security "The 43-50 vote was far short of the necessary 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. Republicans, who have repeatedly demanded Democrats act on the border, abandoned the compromise proposal at the behest of Donald Trump who saw it was a political “gift” for Biden’s re-election chance."
Is it possible to reset to center in an era of social media? Polarization feels too rewarded for me to think most politicians will want to compromise, especially when in the majority party.
What I would actually LOVE to see regarding improving bipartisanship is to 1) eliminate the filibuster and 2) add a new rule that demands bipartisanship. Let’s say 5 (I’m just giving a random number here) senators from an opposing party are required to sign on to any given bill in order to pass. Meaning, they could still have a few senators of their own party vote no, but if they can get senators of other party to vote yes, they can get the bill passed.
I think it may take a little while to get the ball rolling on something like that, since our politics have become so calcified. But if the senate is as adaptive as Gabe claims they are, I think they’d eventually do just that, adapt.
Rachel, thank you for thinking positively.
Gabe’s article and your comment assume a normal environment where everyone is working in good faith for the common good.
It does not address the uniquely destructive qualities of nominees tasked with dismantling the departments to which they are nominated to lead.
Hence, RFJ, Jr. (and others). I have no patience for theoretical discussions when my reality is my daughter cannot get a COVID vaccine.
I agree with you entirely. I did not mean to imply it would address the wildly inappropriate senate confirmations. That I believe needs a totally separate process.
We do not need two Houses, so if it becomes a total houseification, then we might as well eliminate one chamber and save the money. It's absurd if they think the voters will be fine with duplicate dysfunctional chambers. Either one is the brake pedal, or it's no longer useful.
I would love if we could have some good old fashioned Tip O'Neil/Ronald Reagan comradery, but alas, when folks like Lisa Murkowski (who would be an obvious hope as a member of this panel as a moderate member of the right) are out there saying publicly that 'retaliation from Trump is real,' it feels naive to think that there are Republicans that would stand with Democrats against the president on anything. One need only recall the Republicans killing the bipartisan Biden immigration bill because Trump wanted to run on border security "The 43-50 vote was far short of the necessary 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. Republicans, who have repeatedly demanded Democrats act on the border, abandoned the compromise proposal at the behest of Donald Trump who saw it was a political “gift” for Biden’s re-election chance."
https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/video/2025/04/retaliation-is-real-why-republicans-in-congress-wont-stand-up-to-trump
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/15/biden-trump-pardon-mitt-romney
My goodness....what a kind of man-child is at the helm?!?
Is it possible to reset to center in an era of social media? Polarization feels too rewarded for me to think most politicians will want to compromise, especially when in the majority party.