By Suzanne Bowdey

Usually, Democrats are the ones offering wild solutions to Congress’s problems, so it came as a bit of a surprise when President Donald Trump chimed in with what conservatives would agree is his worst idea yet. “Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW,” the president posted in frustration. And while that “nuclear option” would certainly end the government shutdown, it would also guarantee the end of something far more important: bipartisanship.

Americans have heard a lot about the Senate filibuster in recent years. Both sides, at one point or another, have wished the 60-vote threshold away, knowing how much easier it would be to pass legislation without the minority party’s support. And sure, burning down 200-year-old rules so that the majority can ram policies through with just 51 votes sounds like a great idea — until the shoe is on the other foot.

As National Review’s Jim Geraghty put it, “If you get rid of the filibuster, well then yes, you can pass a whole bunch of stuff with less than 60 votes and that’ll be great. But the next time you’re in the minority,” he warns, “the other side with less than 60 votes can get rid of all that and also enact all of their worst ideas.”

In the past, when this idea has come up, cooler heads have always prevailed. That’s thanks, in large part, to the heroic stands of former Senators Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Kyrsten Sinema, an Independent, that the Left hasn’t already set fire to the one tradition forcing the two sides to talk. It’s worth noting that in her retirement speech, Sinema talked about the preservation of the filibuster as her most important legacy, insisting, “You don’t have to burn down the rules and norms to achieve what you want. You can just do the hard work.” Killing a rule that forces senators to compromise and work together doesn’t solve “the disease of division,” she argued.

Sinema praised “the guardrails of democracy,” the same ones that “many now blame … for blocking critical progress, instead of recognizing that it is us, our actions, our words, our incivility and, ultimately, our unwillingness to compromise that prevent reasonable solutions from advancing.” She paused, adding, “There are dangers to choosing short-term victories over the hard and necessary work of building consensus. To give in to the temptation of the short-term victory means giving into the chaos caused by the constant ricocheting of laws…”

Manchin was just as emphatic, writing at a time when his leadership wanted to unlock the door to mob rule, “Generations of senators who came before us put their heads down and their pride aside to solve the complex issues facing our country. We must do the same. The issues facing our democracy today are not insurmountable if we choose to tackle them together.” He cautioned Democrats in 2021 to “avoid the temptation to abandon our Republican colleagues on important national issues. Republicans, however, have a responsibility to stop saying ‘no’ and participate in finding real compromise with Democrats.”

Their refusal to cave in the face of withering party pressure almost certainly saved America from the radical passions of Democrats. So the idea that Donald Trump would reignite this debate to profoundly change the way the Senate operates has a lot of Republicans scratching their heads.

“What you’re seeing is an expression of the president’s anger at the situation. He is as angry as I am and the American people are about this madness, and he just desperately wants the government to be reopened,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) tried to explain when he was asked.

And yet, the threat is serious enough that Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) took time in last Tuesday’s closed-door lunch to try to enlist Vice President J.D. Vance’s help in steering Trump away from this dangerous position. For Kennedy and others, this is not idle talk. He knows, as do most others, that Trump wanted to overhaul the Senate rules in his first term. As former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell explained in his book, “Trump asked me to go nuclear and I had a one word answer: ‘No.’”

His successor, John Thune (R-S.C.), is equally adamant. “The 60-vote threshold has protected this country,” he underscored. “…There’s always a lot of swirl out there, as you know, from, you know, social media, etc., but no, we’re not having that conversation,” the majority leader said earlier this month. “I think he,” Thune said, referring to Trump, “like a lot of people, views it as sort of one of those creatures of Senate history that doesn’t fit the modern times. But,” he stressed, “I do think that most of our members — and there aren’t more than probably a handful who would vote to get rid of it — believe that it does.”

Even liberal Republicans like Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) are drawing a line in the sand, calling the filibuster “the Senate’s most important institutional safeguard” on Friday and warning that eliminating it “would inflict lasting harm on Congress’s ability to voice the will of the people.” If Washington wants to end the shutdown, Murkowski told reporters, “we need to sit down and negotiate in good faith — not resort to the nuclear option,” she continued. “If the legislative filibuster is abolished, both sides will regret it.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins reminded Americans on Monday’s “Washington Watch” that Democrats have controlled the Senate more than Republicans have over the last century. “And this is one of those things that you have to look downrange as to what your decisions today will lead to.” As recently as 2021 and 2022, President Joe Biden and leaders like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wanted to bulldoze the filibuster to force through everything from a federal election takeover to overturning hundreds of pro-life laws. Imagine what the Left would do with a blank check to pass their worst ideas with a simple majority, things like:

• The Equality Act, which destroys religious freedom and abolishes girls’ sports, privacy laws, gender-specific bathrooms, sex-specific housing and prison guidelines, conscience rights, faith-based adoption and foster care criteria, freedom in hiring practices, parental rights in education, objections to preferred pronouns, and more
• Packing the Supreme Court
• D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood to expand the Democrats’ majority in the U.S. Senate
• Federalized elections that would destroy ballot integrity measures like voter ID and proof of citizenship, while also giving illegal immigrants the right to vote
• Unlimited, taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand that would also overturn hundreds of pro-life laws in the states
• The Equal Rights Amendment, a backdoor to enacting huge swaths of the leftist agenda like late-term abortion and radical gender ideology
• Radical climate change initiatives that would tank U.S. businesses, kill jobs, plunge America further into debt, create more red-tape regulations, and destroy America’s energy independence
• Gun control, including mandatory background checks, assault weapons bans, red flag orders, raising the buying age, and statewide crackdowns
• Amnesty for illegal immigrants that would end deportations, re-open the border, allow illegal immigrants to vote and enjoy taxpayer-funded benefits, and radically limit — if not eliminate — ICE
• Socialized medicine, including defining abortion and gender procedures as “health care,” eliminating the conscience rights of doctors, nurses, and medical professionals, while also destroying the private system
• Tax hikes that would put the hurt on America’s corporations, high-income earners, and also eliminate family-friendly policies like the child tax credit

In other words, every horrible idea Democrats have ever had would be possible if they had the House, a president, and a Senate with a 51-vote majority. And Americans would experience the same legislative whiplash the next time Republicans wrestled control away (if they could once Schumer’s party rigged the election system).

Obviously, working within the Founders’ system requires compromise, civility, and middle ground — three things that the modern Left abandoned long ago. But without that 60-vote safeguard, FRC’s Quena González shook his head, the results would be catastrophic. “We would be facing down the barrel of a gun every single election.”

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.