The reason is not "The filibuster should be eliminated because Republicans use it, and I don't like Republicans."
The reason is "The filibuster should be eliminated because it's possible for one political party to abuse it, and moreover, that has happened."
That reason may be based on facts or not, or convincing or not, but it is an argument that is not based on personal dislike of one party, except insofar as one party is doing something that would be bad if any party did it, and you are prepared to dislike any party that does it.
If I said "Gerrymandering is bad because Republicans have used it to their advantage," I would be agreeing with your argument about gerrymandering, because both of us would be prepared to say the same thing about any other party were that party to use gerrymandering to their advantage.
I remember the Democrats threatening court packing and DC/PR statehood with the merest of advantages.
And now they have it.
Which means the Democrats will probably reinstate the filibuster out of collegiality or some other insane reason. The Democrats are averse to winning.
You don't preserve Democracy by making it difficult to Govern. When politicians are elected, they should be given the opportunity to actually govern on the agenda they ran on. Otherwise, elections becomes completely meaningless as everyone knows that meaningful change can never be implemented no matter what. I would argue that is more dangerous to democracy. The modern world evolves rapidly and a country needs a Government that's able to respond effectively to those changes.
The argument that an elected majority, elected by free and fair elections, should not be able to implement the platform they ran on seems fundamentally anti-democratic in itself.
What prevents an elected majority from consolidating power? Well, that's why we have 3 different branches of the Federal Government, and staggered election to bicameral Congress.
That is a reasonable argument against filibuster. I may agree with it or disagree, I don't know where I stand.
But the argument "because Republicans" should not be acceptable.
> The argument that an elected majority, elected by free and fair elections, should not be able to implement the platform they ran on seems fundamentally anti-democratic in itself.
It is more complicated than that.
In the real world the democratic system should also protect against "tyranny of the majority". Many checks and balances exists in particular to avoid that tyranny, not just three branches you mentioned.
Again, I'm not saying filibuster is good or bad.
It should be acceptable. I am not sure what perspective you are making that statement from. I am coming at it by looking at the actions of Senate Republicans for the past decade. We absolutely must judge parties by what they do. A party that exists simply for the sake of obstruction, while claiming lies as its policy platform during elections, must be called out as such: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/news/2016/07/...
> In the real world the democratic system should also protect against "tyranny of the majority". Many checks and balances exists in particular to avoid that tyranny, not just three branches you mentioned.
They haven't really succeeded in doing that, if you look at American history. The majority in the US has always behaved in a tyrannical fashion, making it difficult or impossible for the minority to succeed. This happened first with the Protestant majority, then the White majority. When it couldn't do so explicitly, it did so via implicit structures that enforced this.
So the argument of filibuster as a check against the "tyranny of the majority" also doesn't really hold, through experience. Its also a fundamentally racist structure: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/senate-fil...
>It should be acceptable.
I think you may be talking past each other. The argument I think you are making is that, "The filibuster is regularly abused and no longer serves sufficient purpose relative to its cost." The evidence can be argued from republican actions. But the reason should not be "I don't like republicans so I want to reduce their power." The abuse scenarios apply equally to democrats or other theoretically parties.
A similar discussion is highly disturbing with relation to the Supreme Court. That narrative seems to be, how can we maneuver to pack it with people sharing my views, rather than something like: "How can maintain the neutrality and de-politicalization of court?" Perhaps because we already cross the line of no return, or it was naive to ever think it existed.
That is very dangerous reasoning.
Filibuster should be kept or eliminated regardless of political preferences and current majority in congress.
If the system starts get adjusted too easily for the needs of current majority, it might be beneficial in short term, but in the long term it will shatter the democracy: what is the point of having election laws if any of them can be changed by those who are in power now.
This is the same reason why the court should not be packed: it might seem be the fair thing for the current democratic majority, but it will damage the system credibility.
This is the same reason why gerrymandering need to be fixed.