The New Yorker has the article Senatus Decadens. It is a nicely written description of how the Senate has declined over the last 40 or so years.

The Senate is in a prolonged, self-induced coma. It does not produce creative legislation. It does not inspire important debate. It is not responsive to key national problems. Its pretense of institutional dignity is so battered that junior senators openly mock it. I’m amazed that so many talented people—Elizabeth Warren among the most recent—still fight like hell to get into it.

This article trots out the usual explanation for why the Democratic leadership is hesitant to embrace reform.

…among Democrats, most of the leadership oppose anything that will upset the status quo, perhaps out of a fear that the same tactic could be used on them.

And I respond again.

What a silly concern.  If it takes only 51 votes to change the rule, then the Republicans can change it the next time they get a majority irrespective of what the Democrats do now.  You can bet that the Republicans won’t be so squeamish.

In fact the mere threat of doing away with the filibuster the last time the Republicans were in control was enough to cower the Democrats.  I don’t see any signs of this level of tactical thinking by the Democrats.