Democrats must go big before they go home

Americans have a very good idea what four-times-indicted former President Donald Trump would do in a second term. He and his cronies have let on: cut off Ukraine aid (“settle the war,” in his parlance, means give Russia what it wants), weaponize the Justice Department against his enemies, use the military to suppress dissent, shred the civil service, appoint compliant judges, expand his Muslim ban, break up NATO and repeal the Affordable Care Act. Having boasted about overturning Roe v. Wade, he would surely be compelled to pursue a nationwide abortion ban.

To consider what President Biden would do in a second term requires that we examine two entirely separate scenarios. When MAGA Republicans lead the House and can paralyze the Senate (if not hold the majority outright), they oppose even legislation they say they want. That is precisely what happened in the border debate. Though a second Trump term would be catastrophic, a second Biden term with Republicans running Capitol Hill would be a three-ring circus. Biden would be hardpressed just to keep the government open, the country from defaulting and impeachment from becoming commonplace.

That brings us to a second-term scenario in which, as Biden had in his first two years, Democrats hold slim majorities in both the House and the Senate. In that case, Biden would need to make a major determination: “go big” (before Democrats go home) or “go bipartisan.”

“Go big” would recognize that our democracy is suffering from structural infirmities well beyond the MAGA movement. The MAGA Republican Party has learned to transform rules favoring the minority into the tyranny of a demographically shrinking, mostly white, Christian party. When Democrats have power (however briefly), a go-big outlook would recognize the urgency of protecting our democracy by enhancing majority rule.

That almost certainly would require modification, if not the demise, of the filibuster. If Democrats were that bold, they could achieve pro-democracy aims such as D.C. statehood, resuscitation of the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, additional voting reform (e.g., standardized early voting, nonpartisan redistricting) and significant Supreme Court reform (mandatory ethics rules and/or term limits).

Given the timidity of Senate Democrats and Biden’s own centrist bent, however, Biden is more likely to hedge on filibuster reform, leaving him the “go bipartisan” option. Akin to the first two years of his first term, Biden would be pursuing piecemeal deals with the sort of Republicans who backed the infrastructure deal, including Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia.

“Go bipartisan,” in essence, would prevent the horrors of MAGA obstruction and nihilism and perhaps allow passage of a few modest bills. However, by and large, this strategy would leave unaddressed major issues (e.g., voting rights, child care, tax fairness, dreamers) that cry out for solutions. That’s what the future holds in a second Biden term if Democrats claim the majority but refuse to address the filibuster.

Not very exciting, you say? Well, voters should be grilling Democratic Senate candidates on their willingness to prune or uproot the filibuster. That would make a world of difference to Biden, the country and our democracy.