When the Democratic convention took place in August, with new nominee Kamala Harris rising in the polls, Democrats were giddy with a sense of impending victory. In Chicago for the convention, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer of New York visited with party officials and reporters to outline his plans for a glorious new age in Washington with Democrats in control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.
Schumer's top priority in the new Harris administration would have been to eliminate the legislative filibuster that has long protected minority rights in the Senate. That way, even if the Senate were tied between 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, those 50 Democrats, with the tiebreaking vote of Vice President Tim Walz, could enact far-reaching legislation without any input at all from Republicans. Washington would have true one-party rule, and the minority party would have no say in things whatsoever.
Democrats had tried to kill the filibuster in 2022, when Democrats had just 50 votes, but fell two votes short when two independent-minded Democratic senators, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, refused to go along with the party. In 2022, Democrats picked up another seat, giving them a 51-49 majority in the Senate. That put them one vote closer to killing the filibuster.
Schumer believed 2024 would be the year Democrats could finally erase any Republican power in the Senate. Manchin and Sinema were both leaving the Senate, Schumer explained at his talk in Chicago. Manchin's seat would be won by a Republican, so it still would be unavailable for Democrats. But Sinema's seat would be won by Democrat Ruben Gallego, Schumer said, and Gallego would go along with the party on the filibuster. That would give Democrats the 50 votes they needed, provided there was a Vice President Walz to break the tie.
Recommended
"We got it up to 48, but, of course, Sinema and Manchin voted no; that's why we couldn't change the rules," Schumer explained. "Well, they're both gone. Ruben Gallego is for it, and we have 51. So even losing Manchin, we still have 50." And if there were 50 Democrats, and given his confidence that there would be a Vice President Walz, Schumer would be preparing at this moment to destroy the filibuster and prepare a wave of legislation so objectionable to moderates and conservatives that they would be passed on Democratic votes alone.
But it didn't happen. The Democrats lost votes in the election. Republicans will have a 53-to-47 majority in the Senate. Schumer is headed toward being the minority leader. And there will be no Vice President Walz. None of Schumer's dreams came true.
So this week, Schumer went to the well of the Senate and addressed some remarks to his Republican colleagues. "Another closely contested election now comes to an end," he said. "To my Republican colleagues, I offer a word of caution in good faith: Take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We've seen that happen over the decades, and it has consistently backfired on the party in power. So, instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it's bipartisan. If we want the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation."
The short version of that is: Please don't do to us what we were going to do to you. Schumer is obviously concerned that Republicans might embrace a scheme to eliminate the filibuster and pass all sorts of consequential legislation with no Democratic input at all. That wouldn't be bipartisan! Fortunately for Schumer, Republicans have been more principled than Democrats when it comes to the legislative filibuster, and to the filibuster in general. Republicans realize that even though they will have the majority for the next two years, they might be back in the minority at any time after that. So Schumer will not get it good and hard the way he planned to give it to Republicans.
The filibuster has always been the subject of hypocrisy in the Senate. The late Sen. Fred Thompson used to explain it this way: When we are in the majority, the filibuster is bad. When we are in the minority, the filibuster is good. It's an issue that some lawmakers hop back and forth on, depending on whether their party is in the majority or minority.
But Schumer's brand of hypocrisy is particularly egregious. He was not advocating whether this or that individual bill should or should not be filibustered. That goes on all the time. He was advocating changing Senate rules, on an entirely partisan basis, to eliminate the minority party's ability to demand a higher standard of approval for controversial legislation. And then, when Schumer's party loses, he instantly turns around and becomes Mr. Bipartisanship. For that, there should be a word that goes beyond mere hypocrisy.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member