In 2013, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid decided to eliminate the 60 votes necessary to confirm executive nominations and judicial appointments. The new procedural rule would require that only a simple majority was necessary to confirm these positions. Senator Mitch McConnell vowed to utilize the same tactic if Republicans won control of the Senate, which he did.
This change set a precedent moving toward ending the filibuster all together. The filibuster is a method for the minority party to help delay or block Senate action on an a matter. The result, if legislative, can be the end of the bill. The “nuclear option” started a change that could in effect end the filibuster as we know it. Many believe there could be a move to end the filibuster for legislative issues.
Chad Pergram at Fox News recently wrote, “there is some thought on Capitol Hill that the filibuster could evaporate if Republicans maintain control of the Senate in 2020 and Trump wins a second term.” He also outlines concerns that the same could happen if Democrats win. Either way, the filibuster is at risk along with the ability for the party in the minority to appropriately represent the people they serve. This is more than simply a tactic of those in the Federal Government, but is a highlight of a cultural issue altogether.
The left has slowly moved society into a state of “if you do not see things my way (or we can’t win), I will change the rules.” This is clearly evident in 2 issues that have come up recently. The first is with recent 2020 Democratic hopefuls calling for the end of the Electoral College. Many of them blame the loss of the 2016 election on the Electoral College and that it must be eliminated. This is not the first time a President has won an election without winning the popular vote. Governor Mike Huckabee wrote a great opinion article on Fox News describing how the Electoral College protects all Americans. The Electoral College worked in 2016 just as it was designed to; to protect Americans from one or two states imposing their will on the rest.
The second was when restaurant chain Chick-fil-a was banned from the San Antonio Airport and the Buffalo Niagara Airport over claims that they support anti-LGBTQ behavior. The very group that claims to fight for “inclusion” and “acceptance” refuses to accept anyone that has a different point of view than their own. Chick-fil-a may have differing viewpoints, but has shown through many instances that they do not discriminate against those who have opposing viewpoints. I have never witnessed a Chick-fil-a that has refused service or entry to someone of the LGBTQ community. In fact, I have known members of the LGBTQ community to visit Chick-fil-a regularly because of the food and service. I’m also reminded of Chick-fil-a doing a remarkable service for the victims of the Orlando Pulse Night club shooting. Even after showing their kindness, the company is still unwanted because “they will not conform their beliefs” to agree with the LGBTQ community.
Issues like these two, or many others, have created a culture of “my way or I will change the rules.” I will certainly not discount there are many times rule changes have been necessary, but it usually results in a united front from both sides for change. As it stands now, the left and the right can’t even agree on a restaurant for lunch.