Listening to a @jbouie livechat about the filibuster right now and it's made it clear: the filibuster (and particularly reconciliation as a workaround) hasn't just bottled up progressive legislation, but it's warped the entire constitutional system in subtle-but-fundamental ways.

Reconciliation is the only way to get a law through Congress most of the time, and most of Congress's authorities, to regulate or pass social legislation, are inaccessible in reconciliation.
So the role of Congress has shifted. Instead of the broad national legislature envisioned by Article I - a body to rule over the whole country and direct its government - Congress has become, in most cases, an agency for management of the federal budget.
The existence of reconciliation as an exception to the filibuster is essential to this shift. If reconciliation didn't exist, Congress would be sidelined almost completely, paralyzed, and what would likely happen is that frustrated majorities would just end the practice entirely.
But because of reconciliation, there's actually a pathway to legislating - it's just bound by a strict set of rules that actually dramatically alter the scope of how Congress can act. Thus most of Congress's work gets channeled through those limits, narrowing its practical power.
From Congress's perspective, this almost reverts the body back to a pre-New Deal status quo, with a much weaker federal government - as if there was a congressional amendment restricting the body's enumerated powers to the federal budget and requiring a max of one law annually.
But we HAVEN'T reverted back to a pre-New Deal status quo. We still have a post-New Deal executive branch, with vast and powerful executive agencies managing huge sectors of government. And with Congress unable to act outside the budget, those agencies are hard to check.
So the filibuster/reconciliation chokepoint hugely shifts the locus of power towards the executive branch, which acts unilaterally after presidential elections, supported by aging-but-now-largely-inalterable pieces of legislation creating those agencies and their authorities.
I think this new de facto constitutional order has begun to creep into the minds of people in government, too. You saw it a lot in Trump's administration - the executive running rampant, doing whatever it pleased, while Congress mostly busied itself with budgets.
Non-budgetary, non-spending matters are often treated by congressional types as a kind of sideshow, and the "real" business of their job is shifting money around. I suspect that's in part because money stuff is the only legislation they have a realistic avenue to pass!

More from Society

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party