They need legislative victories in order to secure electoral victories.

Jimmy Stewart conducting a filibuster in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939). Source: Roll Call

The Democratic presidential race has already begun in earnest. Several candidates have announced they are running against Donald Trump and have started discussing their platforms. These platforms are historically ambitious. They include forgiving college debt, imposing massive progressive taxes, and passing Medicare for All. Along with the introduction of new bills, there has been renewed talk of how Democrats could pass those bills. The most obvious roadblock is the Senate filibuster, the rule requiring a near-impossible supermajority of 60 senators to pass legislation not directly connected to the budget.

Jim Newell of Slate recently presented a case for why the Senate will not remove the filibuster anytime soon. Newell notes that no declared Democratic candidate has argued for ending the filibuster, and a large number of nominally liberal Democratic senators are against it as well. The Republican Party is staunchly against its repeal, even though President Trump has sent a barrage of tweets calling for it to be eliminated. Newell argues that this is because the filibuster serves a helpful role in the Senate: “Majorities don’t like to admit it, but they appreciate the short-term benefits of the filibuster as much as minorities do. It’s a useful excuse for why they’re not passing all of the polarizing legislation that the House is sending their way.”

Newell’s case is convincing, but it downplays the danger posed by an enduring filibuster. With the filibuster intact, there is a chance that Democrats could lose much more than a Medicare for All bill: they could lose the long-term trust of American voters.

With a few exceptions, the Democratic Party’s approach to holding power since the 1930s has been the enactment of social legislation. Social legislation fulfills the promise that Democrats make to voters: elect Democrats, and they will use the powers of government to improve the material and social well-being of the American people. The length of Democratic rule is predicated on how Democrats deliver on that promise. In the 1930s and 1940s, FDR and his contemporaries could point to worker protections, Social Security, and federal job creation programs when they went on reelection campaigns. Lyndon Johnson could point to achievements in civil rights and poverty reduction, and promise more of these protections if he were afforded another term in office. This bargain helped Democrats secure the longest control of the House of Representatives by one party in American history.

When the achievements of Democrats are stymied in one way or another, their legacy and years in power are diminished. Lyndon Johnson’s strength and legacy were undermined by the war in Vietnam overshadowing his domestic achievements. Jimmy Carter’s move away from social legislation doomed both him and his successor candidate, Walter Mondale. While Bill Clinton was successful as president in many ways, his lack of a set of programs hindered his less charismatic vice president, Al Gore, in the next election. Barack Obama’s victories were hamstrung by the presence of the filibuster, forcing him to curb the size and eventual success of both health care reform and his stimulus bill.

Killing the filibuster is by no means a safe or easy task. Its removal would allow Republicans and any successor to Donald Trump to more easily pass reactionary and discriminatory legislation. Revoking the filibuster would continue the shattering of norms that Trump and Mitch McConnell have prioritized throughout their tenures. But Democrats need to fight for their own futures and their own time in power. If changing the rules is necessary to pass the legislation that will appeal to voters and secure re-election, then Democrats have no other choice.