A filibuster is not embedded in the Constitution, but voters might want to know what they are getting when they vote for Democratic Senators. Speaking at Congressman John Lewis’s funeral, Barack Obama referred to the filibuster as “a Jim Crow relic’ “that should be eliminated if it gets in the way of Democratic voting legislation or admitting Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico as states,” reports the WSJ.

The logic goes like this: Adding states to the U.S.—or, say, packing the courts—is expected to increase Democratic political power. Republicans are the modern-day obstacle to liberal policies, and therefore by definition the opponents of civil rights. Therefore, supporting the filibuster perpetuates the legacy of Jim Crow.

The door to radicalism is getting busted wide open, and Americans of both parties may not like what comes out the other side.

David Harsanyi Explains the Filibuster in NRO:

The filibuster complements the constitutional checks and balances that have historically made American governance effective. A strong minority has always been a distinguishing feature of the upper house. Because when thin majorities ram though massive centralized federal laws that affect all states, as Democrats plan to do, it not only undermines political stability but self-governance as well. The blowback to the heavy-handed passage of Obamacare, an event that has a lot to do with the exceptionally frayed and acrimonious tone we see in Washington today, should have been instructive.

The more divergent our views become, the more imperative it is to build consensus rather than rely on political domination. As Senator Kirsten Gillibrand noted not long ago, “If you don’t have 60 votes yet, it just means you haven’t done enough advocacy, and you need to work a lot harder.”

A Polarizing Move

Prominent Democrats have been dropping hints. If Democrats win the Senate, inquires the WSJ, would some scrap the filibuster for legislation?

By requiring 60 votes, the filibuster gives Senators in the minority a say in legislation and differentiates the upper chamber from the more partisan House of Representatives.

Segregationists did use the filibuster to block civil-rights legislation in the 1950s, though that also meant that when strong legislation finally passed in the 1960s, it was backed by durable majorities.

In 2017 most Senate Democrats signed a letter supporting the filibuster because “we are steadfastly committed to ensuring that this great American institution continues to serve as the world’s greatest deliberative body.”

Barack Frames It as Racists

With Mr. Obama’s blessing this will become conventional wisdom among liberal intellectuals, and woe betide a Democrat who disagrees.

Centrist Democrats won’t survive primaries if they support the filibuster, and our guess is that even West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, who last week pushed back against the anti-filibuster drive, won’t stand in the way if he is the decisive 50th vote.

The door to radicalism is getting busted wide open, and Americans of both parties may not like what comes out the other side.