Watch a modern political newscast, then tell me with a straight face that we haven’t returned to the1950s.

A former American intelligence worker is sparking international intrigue by hiding out in Moscow. A controversial trial in a Southern state has sparked nationwide racial unrest. Perhaps most frighteningly, we spent half of the last week hearing about the possible use of the “nuclear option,” with nobody quite sure whether anyone would follow through.

The first two stories have dominated the national spotlight of late, and with good reason. But let’s take a look at the last.

For those of you dusting off your DeLoreans or running for fallout shelters, calm down — we aren’t back in the ’50s, and this isn’t that nuclear option. Rather, it’s the somewhat sensationalist name given to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) latest cause: filibuster reform. You see, Reid was fed up with the way the 113th Senate’s Republican minority has used the filibuster.

And he damn well should’ve been.

Let’s look at the filibuster’s history. An oft-demonized legislative strategy, the filibuster involves blathering on and/or forcing procedural delays until supporters of an otherwise passable vote get sick of you and go home. It has long served as the poster child for Capitol Hill’s dark side — the epitome of self-aggrandizing obstructionism in a supposedly sacred temple of public service.

That is, of course, until your party pulls one off.

How could I forget my home-state Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) eight-hour tirade against the extension of Bush-era tax cuts in 2010? Some of my peers expressed similar pride at Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) opus this March on the CIA’s drone policy. Most recently, Texas State Sen. Wendy Davis’ (D-Fort Worth) 10-hour stand against tightened abortion restrictions has functionally canonized her among pro-choice activists.

At its best, the filibuster can be one of the most admirable aspects of democracy — an elected representative clinging desperately to his or her core beliefs, even in the face of probable defeat.

That’s why it saddens me to say that Reid should have dropped the bomb.

The filibuster is rarely used to fight the good fight anymore, an undeniable reality no matter your political affiliation. The Republican minority has used the threat of filibuster to fight virtually every measure Reid’s Democrats have put forth. They’ve essentially removed “majority rule” from the U.S. Senate, replacing it with a de facto 60-vote requirement. That doesn’t make me angry because I lean to the left — it makes me angry because it prevents real governing.

Don’t believe it? As observed by Slate’s Emma Roller last week, the United States Congress has passed a grand total of 15 bills this year: six revisions of previous bills, three reauthorizations, three appropriations, two commemorative bills and the “Freedom to Fish Act.” Do those 15 bills represent an honest effort to solve the nation’s problems?

The apparent last straw for Reid was the blocking of several of Obama’s executive nominees. Confirmation processes once considered formalities in all but the most high-profile cases had morphed into just another turn at which the GOP blocks the president. Reid’s reform would have required a simple majority vote for confirmation of executive nominees, eliminating the need for a 60-40 majority to invoke cloture.

Reid’s proposed change to the confirmation process was narrow in itself, but the majority leader’s willingness to challenge the institution at all outraged traditionalists — and frightened subscribers to the slippery-slope theory of politics.

Future Congresses, they worried, would use Reid’s Rubicon crossing as precedent for more extreme procedural changes for short-term political gain. That’s why a seemingly minor stitch to the storied legislative body earned such an explosive nickname — it was seen as a history-altering decision and one with potentially disastrous ramifications if examined with a shortsighted eye.

These concerns are understandable. But to their proponents, I offer one question: Is that nightmare scenario that much worse than the current state of affairs?

Congress has passed 15 bills by mid-July, and the majority party — with a newly reelected president in office, no less — can’t get any of its agenda passed. And after suffering such an absurd stretch of blatant obstructionism, why should the Democrats behave any differently if they find themselves in the minority?

This may be more a problem with our modern political culture than the filibuster itself. But despite the eventual compromise on Obama’s executive nominees, substantive bipartisan goodwill has yet to return. A legislative tool can’t be evaluated independently of its users, and today’s lawmakers have proven themselves incapable of using it responsibly.

Because a deal was struck, we won’t know for a while whether Reid was bluffing, as many claimed. Me, I’m holding out hope that this was for real, or even that it reappears sometime soon. A shockwave — even one of the “nuclear” variety — might be just what the system needs.

Pat Curran (COL ’14) is a former sports editor for The Hoya.