Manchin's mistaken prophetic stance on the filibuster

Manchin's mistaken prophetic stance on the filibuster 

Bipartisanship is lacking in both houses. It was worse by the Hastert rule and the McConnell era. In history, personalities matter, which is why we use the term Jeremiad. Until social justice is seen as a winning political issue on both (or even one) side, the debate will nibble around the edges. Both sides are capitalist. 

Social justice, like morality, need to be argued from humanistic points of view. This implies that doing so is interest of the self and the nation rather than God. Israel did not fall because it sinned. It fell because of where it is. Neighborhoods that stand in the way of a major road tend to be bulldozed.  If God is seen as all humble, meaning that they/them have no personal interest in our actions, then there is no conflict between a humanistic and theistic menu of solutions. I have written a few (dozen) books about such solutions.

The Senate was meant to be an assembly of state assemblies. This led to sectionalism and the preservation of slavery, followed by corruption. Making Senators gubernatorial appointees would have been more effective for the institution to function as designed. It was an improved Congress of the Confederation - which required super-majority action to get anything done.

The Civil Rights debates changed cloture from 2/3rds to sixty votes. Sixty is too much because it gives factions in the majority too much power. 51 is too small, unless you like what happened regarding the Amy Comey-Barrett nomination. 55 or 56 are good numbers. The need to get six Republican votes would end Manchin's ability to act as gatekeeper.