Its true, the filibuster was supposed to be used to block bills that a Senator found especially objectionable or unacceptable, due to moral or budgetary reasons.
But starting in 2009 the GOP used the filibuster to instead block ANY and EVERY bill that had a (D) infront of it. Even when they admitted that the actually supported the bill and would vote for the bill. They simply wanted to stop the Democrat and Obama agenda from getting any success, for purely political reasons.
Meanwhile, Dems still passed highly ideological bills through Reconciliation, which kinda makes the filibuster meaningless.
A filibuster rule cannot be either created or destroyed. It was only created accidentally. It cannot be created or restored intentionally. For any given session, the majority party is not going to give the minority party a filibuster rule. The rule would require a majority approval, and the majority will never approve. Therefore, a filibuster rule will never be restored.
A filibuster rule also cannot be properly destroyed. A vote to remove the rule would itself be subject to a filibuster, which it almost certainly would be. That means the majority party would have to have 60 Senators to vote to change the rule. But if they have a majority of 60, they can block any filibuster by cloture, so they have no need to eliminate a filibuster rule that would be useful to them in the future if they become the majority. Therefore, a majority of 60 will never vote to destroy the filibuster.
That is why eliminating the filibuster through parliamentary loophole tricks is called the "nuclear" option. Out of necessity to escape the self-perpetuating rule, it blows up the rules and destroys the filibuster rule forever. Once it is gone, it is gone for good, daddy-o.
The party the plays the filibuster destructo card gains a benefit during that Senate session. When the filibuster is gone, that affects both sides. But when the majority party first destroys it, they get the benefit first. That gives the party that eliminates the filibuster a benefit because they get to pass measures as a majority during that session and the minority only gets that benefit if they maybe possibly become the majority in the future.
The question is not if the filibuster will be eliminated, but when and by which party and to what benefit. You do not want to do it right before an election where you may lose the majority, because then you squandered your powerful magic item on only a couple months of benefit. Play it right after an election. But not when you have a super majority where you do need it. Or only a slim majority where you may not even get a simple majority vote on the big things you want to pass. Or when you expect what you want will get bi-partisan support.
Reserve that magic item for when it gives the greatest benefit. Even if it passes to the other side, as long as they will be in the same position to question whether to spend it. That means this gets into a very weird territory of game theory. Everybody knows it has power, but it has drawbacks for both sides, and it can only be used once, so each side has to decide if they want to use it now or wait to hope to use it later for something better.
