There has been much talk recently in Republican circles about getting rid of the senate filibuster. More than 50 House Republicans recently signed a letter encouraging the move, which has been endorsed by more than one Republican presidential candidate.

I think it would be a terrible move, particularly for those who value the principle of limited government. It is frustrating, believe me, to watch as Democrats block appropriations bills and other meaningful legislation from getting an up or down vote, but a fair reading of history shows that the filibuster has spared us from bad legislation more often than it has blocked good legislation.

As Lamar Alexander recently pointed out, since World War II, Democrats have controlled both chamber of congress and the White House for 22 years. Republicans had similar control for only six years. When the political pendulum swings, what was once advantageous quickly becomes ruinous.

What is particularly puzzling is the timing for Republican calls for ending the filibuster. Is there really an urgent need to send legislation, like the Iran nuclear deal, to the President’s desk? As long as there is a constitutional two-thirds requirement to override a presidential veto, such a move would be more symbolic than substantive.

But, some will argue, the Democrats have already nuked the filibuster. Shouldn’t Republicans just do the same? It is true that the Democrats changed senate practice by disallowing filibusters for the executive calendar (the President’s nominees), the executive calendar has only recently (since 2003) been fodder for filibusters. Getting rid of the filibuster for legislation would be altogether different.

In short, nuking the filibuster would yield no short term political benefits for Republicans, and would have disastrous long term consequences for conservatives.