Don't get rid of the filibuster: It's a tool for limited government

In the short term, going nuclear would at most provide Republicans with a couple of extra talking points. Republicans could blame the White House for vetoing the DHS bill — as President Obama has already vowed to do — rather than Senate Democrats for not allowing a vote. However, it’s not clear what would really be gained. Blaming the White House doesn’t give the GOP much more real leverage, and it doesn’t avoid the real procedural obstacle: the promised veto itself, which would trigger a showdown with Congress and possibly a “shutdown” of the department, whose funding expires Friday.

For this small-to-nonexistent gain, Republicans would trade away a valuable tool for limited government. A source of constant frustration for many far-left ideologues is the prevalence of checks and balances throughout the federal government. These checks and balances make it hard to impose radical change upon the country. As even nuclear-option proponent Charles Krauthammer has long argued, American politics has often been played between the 40-yard lines; in many European nations, by contrast, the political extremes tend to exert more influence. The institutional DNA of the United States — especially the difficulty of passing new laws — might help explain some of this emphasis on political moderation.

If one wants to push for more extreme change, modifying that institutional DNA should be a first order of business.