Is the Senate filibuster good for America? As Republicans brandish the tactic as a way to block health reform, liberals such as Ezra Klein have begun trashing the arcane practice. But as Ross Douthat points out, anti-filibuster progressives should be careful what they wish for:

I have a very difficult time believing that Ezra Klein, or any other anti-filibuster liberal, would really rather live in a world where the Bush tax cuts had been larger, permanent, and easily passed on a party line vote.

Douthat notes that a filibuster-free Senate under Republican leadership could have pushed through legislation very unappetizing to liberals. The redeeming quality of a filibuster, Douthat argues, is that it promotes moderation and prevents ideological majorities from wielding too much power. Because we have a Senate filibuster, he says:

[The country] continues to be spared, at least to some extent -- the tyranny of temporary and highly ideological majorities. If you dream of a final, permanent victory over your ideological opponents, then obviously you'll find this state of affairs objectionable. Here I think Will Wilkinson puts it well: The more ideological you are, the less satisfactory [the power of minorities] will seem.

Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at jhudson at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
John Hudson