I don't disagree with anything g you said....but you'd think that after 20 years of this partisan approach, both parties would see the benefits of working together. Both parties are at fault. In the current issue, abortion, the bill proposed by Schumer is so extreme - my opinion - abortion on demand up to birth that you know it won't pass. Maybe, just maybe, if the came up with a middle ground, something like 15-20 weeks, they could come to an agreement.The filibuster has no basis in the Constitution. It is entirely a historical accident.
The best argument that can be made for the filibuster, and its requirement of 60 votes to pass a cloture motion, is that a piece of legislation should merit enough bipartisan support to garner at least some votes from members of the opposing party. The problem with that argument is that the Senate is and has been sufficiently polarized that it is difficult to get more than one or two votes from Senators of an opposing party for any legislation. The result is that the filibuster effectively prevents the Senate from doing anything.
The filibuster has been around to a long time. It's not the problem. The problem is that both sides are he'll bent on one upping the other. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a unified approach to tamping down inflation?