Left-wing pundits are correctly concerned that all of the progressives’ plans to remake America will be derailed by the filibuster. They are consequently indignant at the reluctance of several of the candidates to abolish it. They typically attribute this to a mistaken, anachronistic, misty-eyed romanticism about bipartisanship and deliberation in the Senate. Are they right?
Of course not. The candidates who don’t support abolishing the filibuster can foresee a time in which the GOP has control of the presidency and both houses of Congress. Does anyone doubt that the current version of the Republican Party would use the opportunity to completely gut the welfare state and ban abortion on a national level (once Roe has been overturned)? You could say that self-interest would prevent the counter-revolution, but Republican legislators have had great success using racism and the culture wars to sell this kind of a program to their base in the past, and that could well extend into the future.
Abolishing the filibuster is a gamble that comes with huge risks. The candidates who support abolition need to be open about their willingness to take those risks, and to make a compelling case as to how the worst can be avoided in the future.