In a Politico story exploring Republicans’ support for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) makes a compelling, if unintentional, case for why filibuster reform would mean more bipartisanship. Senator Romney is quoted as saying:
"'There were only two choices here. One option is: We do a bipartisan bill. And the other option is: The Democrats do a bill on their own. There’s not an option of ‘don’t do anything,’’ said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), another negotiator of the bipartisan deal. ‘Leader McConnell recognized this was a better option than just letting the Democrats do this on their own.’”
This is a critical point to understand: Democrats had the ability to move on infrastructure without a single Republican vote, which is exactly why Republicans had an incentive to come to the table. If Republicans didn’t join the process Democrats could simply put their preferred infrastructure policies into reconciliation, which is exempt from the filibuster and can pass with a simple majority.
When the legislative train is leaving the station we see senators jumping up to get on board. But when the minority has the ability to sabotage the tracks and ensure nothing can get done, that is what they will do.
This is the reality that runs counter to how many have thought about the filibuster for a long time: eliminating the filibuster would increase bipartisanship and compromise, not reduce it.
Sen. McConnell is going to try to claim that the infrastructure bill shows that bipartisanship is possible, the Senate is working, and nothing needs to be done about the filibuster. But the truth is the exact opposite: the reason the bipartisan infrastructure deal came together is a perfect demonstration of the need to eliminate the filibuster as a weapon of obstruction.