I think Yglesias is right on this point:

Matthew Yglesias » Home Page

But anyone who is holding out on reform out of fear of empowering future Republican majorities should consider that for all the reasons Democrats will have the chance to change the rules in January 2011, Republicans will be able to change the rules in 2013 or 2015 or whenever else. The only reason filibustering has been allowed for as long as it has has been because of strong norms against its over-use. But those norms have been eroding for decades. The idea that Senate majorities are going to allow this trend to continue indefinitely is silly. The way this movie goes is that the downward spiral of obstruction continues until some majority gets sick of it and changes the rules. The question is when will the rules change not will they be changed.

And though he doesn’t say it, I think I understand why he is sanguine about this change, and why I would support it as well.  The problem we have right now is essentially zero accountability because the public can’t figure out who is responsible for what comes out of Washington.  People are pissed out that our government seems unable to do anything in a timely fashion and then proceeds to blame the party in power. 

But the issue is not an abstract one of accountability.  See here is what I suspect Matt is thinking.  I think he thinks that the best thing for progressive politics would be for the Republicans to be able to actually implement their policy preferences.  More wars, tax cuts for the rich, gutting of entitlements, outlawing abortion, expelling illegals, the whole she-bang.  In the short-run, of course, the result would be disastrous.  In the long-run, it would put an end, once and for all, to much of right-wing agenda.

But similarly, conservatives should support this argument.  You think Obama and Pelosi and Reid are socialists and that the country is actually center-right?  Well, put your money where your mouth is.  Let them govern along majority-rules principles and see whether the country embraces or rejects the results.  My guess is that more progressive taxation, better regulation of financial entities, greater access to medical care, a heavier reliance on clean energy produced in the United States through some sort of cap-and-trade scheme, campaign finance reform that ensures transparency of funding, and well, the rest of the Democratic/progressive/liberal agenda would actually be pretty damn popular once people saw that it did not actually move us in the direction of the serfdom.

The reality is, the theory of conservative politics — small government, low taxes, more religion — is more popular than the real consequences — crumbling infrastructure, cycles of booms and busts, massive concentrations of wealth, and censorship and harassment in the name of “family values.”  Whereas, Democratic preferences tend to be more popular in practice than in the abstract.  I think, as a practical matter, conservatives like the filibuster, in part, because it allows them to pander to their base by promoting policies that they know would be disastrous if implemented.  Just one example…. imagine where the GOP would be if Bush had managed to privatize social security right before the stock market lost 40%.