The problem is the Senate, not the filibuster

The most extended government shutdown in US history has revived a familiar argument: The Senate's filibuster is to blame for congressional paralysis. It’s a compelling narrative with a convenient villain, but it misses the point. The filibuster isn’t the source of the Senate's dysfunction. It's a key tool that prevents the chamber from dissolving into a tyranny of the majority, where national policy can be rewritten overnight.

- 

The filibuster raises the cost of ending debate, but it does not give the minority party a formal veto. A determined majority can overcome it if it’s willing to put in the time and energy. When major legislation stalls, it’s likely because the majority party chooses not to use its existing powers — including requiring senators to hold the Senate floor in extended debate — to overcome the minority’s obstruction, according to the Tribune News Service. That choice is what makes the filibuster appear insurmountable.

To understand today’s debate, it's essential to recognize that the Senate was always intended to operate differently from the House of Representatives. Delegates at the Constitutional Convention envisioned the Senate as the body that would “check the inconsiderate and hasty proceedings” of the House. Longer terms, staggered elections, and fewer members embody that design. Today's supermajority requirement for ending debate is a modern tool that carries the same logic forward: broad coalitions tend to produce more durable laws.