Three years ago, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and nearly 100 of her House colleagues signed a letter urging top Senate Democrats to take sweeping action.

‘This is an existential moment for our country,’ Jayapal and other House Democrats wrote. “We cannot let a procedural tool that can be abolished stand in the way of justice, prosperity and fairness.”

This procedural tool? The filibuster, which requires 60 voters for the Senate to pass most legislation except judicial nominations and some budget bills. The filibuster rule, these House Democrats argued in 2021, prevented Congress from “advancing critical legislation that can meet the needs of the people we represent.”

It’s a good thing Senate Democrats didn’t listen.

In the wake of last week’s elections, Republicans appear poised to take full control of the federal government starting in January. (Control of the House remains uncertain, but a slim Republican majority appears likely, even if 16 races remain uncalled as of Tuesday morning.)

When asked Tuesday whether she would still support ending the filibuster in this new political dynamic, Jayapal gave the obvious answer in a somewhat unexpected way.

“Am I advocating eliminating the filibuster now when the (GOP) has the trifecta? No,” Jayapal said. saidaccording to HuffPost journalist Jennifer Bendery. “But if we had the trifecta, I would have been.”

Give him some points for honesty, I guess.

But this sort of cynical opportunism is why the days of the filibuster might be numbered. On both sides, there is a worrying tendency to view anything that curbs the power of a majority in Congress (or a chief executive) as a problem to be solved, rather than a necessary limitation about the raw power of democracy. Those with a more measured view of things, like Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), who played an important role in preserving the filibuster in the early days of the Biden administration — are heading for the door.

The uncertainty over who will assume their role makes it more essential than ever to keep this in mind: There is no world in which abolishing the filibuster makes it easier to pass good laws without also making it easier to pass good laws. ‘passing bad laws – and that’s true regardless of how you personally identify what counts as “good” or “bad.”

Additionally, once the filibuster is over, it will disappear. There is no one-time elimination of the filibuster just to do one special thing. In the final stages of the campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris suggested that the Senate should get rid of the filibuster in order to pass protections for abortion rights. Other Democrats have called for ending the filibuster restructure the Supreme Court. It’s not realistic. Either there is a filibuster rule or there isn’t, because (like all Senate rules) it is only as strong as the members’ willingness to support it.

Democrats don’t have to look far back in history to see how we could get rid of the legislative filibuster. In 2013, Harry Reid (D-Nevada), then Senate Majority Leader. abolished the filibuster for lower court judge nominees, apparently to allow Democrats to confirm more of President Barack Obama’s picks for the federal bench.

How did it go? Installation of President Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Senate almost as many federal judges in four years as Trump’s predecessor did in eight years, causing screams liberals on how conservatives had reshaped the courts.

If only someone had warned them no one wins when you abolish the filibuster.

As this example from a decade ago makes clear, abolishing the filibuster is a particularly stupid thing for Democrats to do. Fair or not, there is no denying that the structure of the Senate leans in favor of the Republicans. Why would a party that is already fighting an uphill battle for the majority want to remove one of the most important institutional protections for the Senate minority party?

This only makes sense if you fail to understand that there will be new elections in two years and that no political majority is permanent. Or if, like Jayapal, you are completely shameless.