Why would Democrats oppose reform of the filibuster?

Daily Kos: With new Senate picture, Reid looking at filibuster reform

Because the filibuster is a senate tradition closely linked to collegiality that has, from time to time, helped protect progressive concerns.

Or because reform -  not even to mention abolition - of the filibuster would enable senate majorities to enact progressive legislation such as significantly higher taxes on higher income levels.

Or because, like the senate itself, its purpose is (allegedly, anyway) the protection of minorities against the excesses of majorities and the republic, itself, against the turbulent and unwise passions of the hoi polloi.

Or just because majority rule in the senate would be too scary, as is democracy in general.

More than one pundit (and by no means only conservative pundits) among us would be willing to openly say that it is a good thing that ours is intentionally a mixed constitution in which the senate is, and is supposed to be, an aristocratic element - meaning a bastion of the rich - in contrast with the more democratic lower chamber.

And, come to that, who does not agree that actual, unchecked, and direct democracy is a silly and even frightening idea, and that competent government requires the full-time attention of intelligent, educated, and well-trained professionals?

But that notion is hardly in question, here.

What is in question is on whose behalf those professionals govern.

Liberals since Mill, at any rate, have agreed that an acceptable constitution must in some manner provide the people with sufficient power to effectively defend themselves against exploitation and domination - by the government, yes, but historically that has meant and today that does mean by the government acting on behalf of the rich.

For that matter, progressives have generally gone further and held the people should ideally be able, through democratic politics and a government of intelligent, educated, and properly trained full-time professionals, to control the economy and indeed the whole life of the country for the common good - which is far from the aim of the rich at any time in history.

But at present, and realistically, not being rulers, themselves, the people at a minimum have to be able to defend themselves from those who are rulers and from those on whose behalf the rulers act.

And I think it's pretty clear the filibuster stands in the way and must be fixed, if the people are indeed to protect themselves.

Else we will have little more democracy than is needed for a mere charade intended only to enlist the loyal obedience of the people to government by their betters, though unabashedly on behalf of the rich, as even the progressive Taft held was proper, in his day, in opposition to the bit more democracy that was advocated by his ex-sponsor, Teddy Roosevelt, for reasons very much like our own.

But the Democratic majority in the senate will in any case neither abolish nor even seriously reform the filibuster.

Fancy that!