Kamala Harris has shrewdly resisted pressures from the left to adopt policies that might alienate moderate swing voters. But on one issue, the Democratic nominee has bowed to liberal orthodoxy: advocating an end to the Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes to pass most bills.

Getting rid of the filibuster would be an important step in restoring the constitutional right to abortion that was canceled by the Supreme Court two years ago in the Dobbs decision.

“I’ve been very clear, I think we should eliminate the filibuster … and get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom and for the ability of every person and every woman to make decisions about their own body,” Harris told Wisconsin Public Radio.

Harris is right on policy: Every woman should be able “to make decisions about their own body.” And she’s right on politics, since CNN reports that by almost 2 to 1, voters disapprove of the court’s ruling.

But from a constitutional and historical perspective, Harris’ proposal is seriously flawed. In seeking short-term advantage, she runs a major long-term risk.

By advocating an end to the filibuster, no matter how virtuous their objective, Democrats are setting a dangerous precedent. Republicans could use the same rules, and the same reasoning, to enact an agenda that their rivals abhor.

“Once you go down that path, there’s no going back,” warns Sen. John Thune, the minority whip from South Dakota. Adds Ruth Marcus, a legal columnist at the Washington Post, “Democrats might miss the filibuster once it’s gone.”

This debate is not just about passing or blocking particular bills or nominations. It’s about altering the essential culture of the Senate. Today’s highly polarized and partisan chamber can be frustrating, but because it’s so divided, the filibuster is more valuable than ever.

The 60-vote threshold on most measures means the majority really has to pay attention to the minority. To appreciate the value of that incentive, just look at the House, which has no filibuster rule. As a result, the parties often seem to be representing different planets.

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia might be a publicity-hungry blowhard, but on this issue, he has a point. Asked on CNN about Harris’ support for filibuster reform, he replied: “She knows the filibuster is the Holy Grail of democracy. It’s the only thing that keeps us talking and working together. If she gets rid of that, then this would be the House on steroids.”

There’s a long grievance-filled backstory here. Both sides blame the other for abusing the filibuster — and both are right. In 2005, after Democrats blocked a number of President Bush’s judicial nominations, Republicans threatened to invoke the “nuclear option” and end the filibuster for judges.

A coalition of 14 senators, seven centrists from each party, stepped in and brokered a compromise. Some judges were approved, others dropped and the filibuster was preserved.

By 2013, however, the centrists had lost leverage. Frustrated by a Republican blockade of Barack Obama’s judicial picks, Democratic leader Harry Reid detonated the nuclear option and ended the filibuster for lower court nominees.

The chain reaction was inevitable. Four years later, the Republicans took the Senate, ended the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations and enabled Donald Trump to place three justices on the court.

Reid later defended his decision to weaken the filibuster, telling reporter Molly Ball: “The Senate’s going to be just like the House, but that’s not the end of the world. You know, the majority would rule. There’s nothing wrong with that.”

Actually, there’s a lot wrong with that. The key test of any healthy democracy is not majority rule. That’s the easy part. The hard part is protecting minority rights, and that’s why preserving the filibuster is so important.

“The filibuster is an infuriating, undemocratic impediment to progress — except, that is, when it is a welcome guardrail against extremism,” writes Ruth Marcus. “How partisans feel about the filibuster on any given day tends to have a lot to do with whether their political party holds the Senate majority. Democrats and Republicans who lament the existence of the filibuster are thankful for it when they find themselves in the minority.”

Harris and the Democrats should pay attention to history. If they undermine the filibuster, even for a good cause like abortion rights, they could live to regret their rashness.

Steven Roberts can be contacted by email at stevecokie@gmail.com.