Filibuster... please?

I've jotted down some thoughts on the filibuster debate going on amongst the big boys, and have a general question or two to address to those who are in favor of ending the filibuster altogether. Unfortunately, I've had precious little sleep lately, so what I lack in coherence will hopefully be made up for by my improper grammar.

The first, and in my mind most important question I'd like to ask of Matt Yglesias and Nathan Newman is what impact they think the lack of filibuster would have on the current Social Security debate. Without it, would we not be more likely to see the push through of major revisions to the Social Security system with a fair amount of ease? There would be no real need (although perhaps a political one) to bring any Democrats on board, no need for a massive tour that has had the reverse effect that the President wanted, and we all could be blogging about the inherent destruction of Social Security as we know it actually happening.

I understand the argument that once the public sees the effects of privatization that they may come back big to Democrat town. But easing the flow of bad Republican ideas could lead to a mess so big that Democrats can't clean it all up once they return to power. While I would love to see, say, health care for all, I'd hate to see it at the cost of benefit cuts that GOP has been trying to put sheep's clothing on and introducing into the flock. The bigger question, then, would be if the short term loss would be worth the potential long term gain?

While people may eventually see the light when it comes to Republican policy, I'm not sure the Democratic base would applaud a move by the leadership to step aside and let the country be washed in a tidal wave of bad legislation. Think of the party outcry when Senate Democrats failed to filibuster the bankruptcy bill. And further, imagine the impact it will have on America as we wait for the public to vote Democratic. Is the sacrifice of those people's lives worth the politic gain? I just have a hard time saying yes.

Further, Republicans will continue to blame liberals for the destruction of America no matter what position they are in. When Democrats were a majority, it was our fault. Now that we are the minority, it's still our fault. Even as they sit in control of everything, it is "activist judges" that are bringing America down by preventing the conservative agenda and keeping us all from showering the GOP with chocolates and flowers. They do it even when PoppaBush and Reagan appointed judges are to blame.

In the perfect world, Democrats would figure out a better way to appeal their message to America. Not because we stand out of touch with the average man, but because they've been hoodwinked into believing what isn't real.

*UPDATE* Do Americans actually want Democrats to filibuster bad GOP legislation? Maybe so(via Ezra):

Speaking of polls, the WSJ/NBC released one (warning: PDF) that asked whether the Democrats should help Bush pass his proposals in bipartisan fashion or oppose the right to keep them from going too far. The answer? Oppose the right, 63%-30%.