More and more often, political leaders and others in the chattering class are calling for an end the filibuster. Since the invention of the cloture rule in the Senate in 1917, there have been many efforts to end the filibuster. So, 100 years later, what harm could be done in debating the merits of endless debate?

Academically, I’m fine with that discussion. But practically I’ve already achieved unanimous consent: ending the filibuster is a lazy, short-sighted strategy that, while it might provide a path forward for healthcare reform today, opens the door for many more poor policies down the road.