Another of the favorite arguments made against Senate rules reform proposals is that one day the majority will change hands, and rules reform will "come back to bite" the Democrats who are now considering passing it.
Will it?
Absolutely. That's what rules do. They bite. That's what they're there for. But then again, that's why Democrats are considering reforms specifically with an eye toward adopting only those that they feel they could live with in the minority.
Now, typically I have answered this argument by pointing out that Republicans were on the verge of forcing through their own version of rules reform when they needed it, in 2005, during the standoff over the so-called "nuclear option." Given that fact, I argued, there can be little doubt that should the majority change hands, Republicans will have little tolerance for permitting Democrats to engage in the same kind of obstruction they've made a matter of policy. In other words, forbearance in reforming the filibuster now is not the same thing as guaranteeing its availability when Democrats want to use it in the future. When they want it, it'll be gone.
But even that answer accepts as true a very narrow and very specific framework for viewing the act of "coming back to bite" that's designed to reflect badly on Democrats.
Is the question really whether Democrats reforming the rules is what will come back to bite? Or is it whether that 2005 Republican threat to change the rules is what's coming back to bite?
Consider that in 2005, Republicans complained that "unprecedented" use of the filibuster by Democrats had to be met with particular force, and the majority had to take full advantage of the rules to make its point. The GOP was, of course, forced back from the brink (at least as far as actual rules changes are concerned) by the so-called Gang of 14. But in doing so, they opened -- or rather, reopened -- the door to invoking cloture and making rules changes by a simple majority vote.
So in a very real sense, it might just as well be asked whether it's the Republican suggestion that rules changes ought not necessarily to be subject to supermajority cloture votes that's doing the coming back and the biting here.
Yes, the Senate actually has a history of leveraging its constitutional authority to bring about rules changes. The Republicans didn't invent this out of whole cloth. (Though they did ignore a critical part of the tradition surrounding it, that is, the preference for exercising it at the beginning of a new Congress.) But until 2005, the doctrine hadn't been seriously discussed for 30 years. Might the fact that it is being discussed again (in its more traditional form) five years later not be viewed as Democrats delivering the "come back and bite" lesson for once?
If that's too partisan an approach for you to contemplate, think about it this way: In 2005, as I put it earlier, Republicans complained that "unprecedented" use of the filibuster by Democrats had made it impossible for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duties, and that a simple majority could and should put an end to the abuse. Unconvinced, Democrats at the time protested vigorously. And Republicans, who lost their majority a year and a half later, no doubt resolved to teach Democrats a painful lesson on the subject.
Two years later, the lesson learned, could it not be said that Democrats have come around to the Republican position? But lo and behold, just as happened when Democrats were said to have come around to the Republican position on mandating health insurance coverage (or for that matter, on ruinous tax cuts), Republicans find themselves (not unlike Democrats, to be sure) suddenly of the opposite opinion. And yet, who levels the "hypocrisy" charge? Republicans, of course.
And all because they're at last on the "getting bitten" end of the equation.
Remember, the effectiveness of the "come back and bite" threat depends on the certainty of there being consequences if certain lines are crossed. To date, there have been no real consequences for the Republican nuclear option threat. Even losing their majority hasn't drastically changed their ability to influence the work of the Senate. We've already speculated that forbearance by Democrats in rules reform is unlikely to result in reciprocation should Republicans regain the majority. And it seems perfectly clear that, there having been no consequences to speak of, Republicans haven't learned any lessons about the inappropriateness of blanket obstructionism. I'd have to guess that they probably haven't learned any about the risks of threatening mid-session rules changes, either.
It might just be that Democrats owe this both to themselves and to the Republicans.
And remember, you can help them do it. Sign our petition. Demand reform of Senate rules, and make the filibuster real.