This column from @richarenberg defending the filibuster is a great example of political analysis that is at best stuck in the past/wrong and at worst dangerous misinformation. A thread. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/512512-unintended-consequences-of-killing-the-filibuster

1) He cites an Adams quote about the tyranny and cruelty of “unbridled majorities” but doesn’t mention that this was Adams talking about MOBS IN FRANCE KILLING ROYALTY, not legislation passing with a majority.

Adams did talk about “the tyranny of the majority” but his solution was "a mixed government, consisting of three branches" not a legislative supermajority requirement.

The other founder to address a related point was Madison (best ex. is Fed.10) who was specifically concerned that an unpropertied majority would take over and redistribute land from minority of rich landowners.

But Madison’s solution was a large and diverse republic, not legislative supermajority requirements (which the framers were trying to move away from after seeing failures of Articles of Confederation).

Notably @richarenberg didn’t mention Hamilton, who rails against minorities blocking the will of majority (in Federalist 22 especially). https://www.newyorker.com/news/hendrik-hertzberg/hamilton-flays-the-filibuster-and-slams-the-senate

2) He cites Obama’s comments against ending the filibuster from 2005. But this was when Republicans were unhappy that Democrats held up 10 nominees (while confirming over 200) and threatening to go nuclear to get every single one.

What happened after that is that McConnell weaponized the filibuster in a way Ds never did and turned it into a tool of complete minority obstruction. And when the facts changed, Obama’s thinking changed.

3) He says he thinks that Congress SHOULD act on voting rights “among other things” and cites the ‘64/65 civil/voting rights acts as well as Social Security and Medicare bills as examples of “pressure” being applied as a “solution” to move “obstructive minority," but...

THESE EXAMPLES PROVE THE OPPOSITE OF HIS POINT! He didn’t mention this, but Ds had supermajorities when those passed. Rs came on board to influence a majority-supported bill that was going to pass, thereby making it bipartisan in the end.

The ability of a minority to fully block, and therefore not even try to influence, is what PREVENTS big bipartisan bills, not what creates them. McConnell figured this out and he's not going back.

4) There’s a whole lot more wrong about this short piece – and check out @AJentleson for some more, but I’ll leave it there for now.