60-votes? Meh

Ezra Klein on the Democratic Party’s new 60-vote majority in the Senate:

But just as the Republican dominance in the early-Oughts was illusory, and the 61 Democrats who controlled the Senate in 1978 were about to be run over by the Reagan Revolution, it’s a pretty safe bet that Democrats won’t hold these margins for long. As such, there are two ways to think about a 60-vote majority. One way is in terms of how long you can keep it. The other is in terms of how much you can achieve with it. The latter strategy means forcing risky votes from vulnerable senators in order to secure enduring accomplishments on things like health-care reform and cap-and-trade. It means accepting, as Kristol said, that the worm will turn, and the question is what the world looks like when it does.  [Emphasis mine]

I don’t know if there’s enough unity within the Senate Democratic caucus for that conceptual frame to be useful.  The past few months have demonstrated the extent to which there are real ideological/interest-based fissures within the Democratic caucus.  Or put another way, Ben Nelson is still the 60th vote, Evan Byah the 59th, Blanche Lincoln the 58th and so on.  It’s certainly nice to think of a 60-vote majority in terms of what you can do with it, but what you can do with it depends almost entirely on some degree of ideological consensus.  Which we don’t have.  Instead, we’re stuck with terrible leadership and a small group of conservative Democrats who will – in all likelihood – work hard to shoot down any meaningful progressive legislation.