National - by Ned Resnikoff on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:00 - 9 Comments - 321 views
I’ve got to hand it to Pratik Mehta: compared to some of the outright lunacy that often comes from the Washington Square News op-ed page, yesterday’s column was The Federalist Papers. It picked a single issue–a thought-provoking one at that–raised some real, legitimate concerns, and included this crazy innovation in column-writing technology in which you insert real, correct facts right into your argument.
But if the theme for his column was “the tyranny of the minority,” then he certainly picked a funny example to run with in the lede: the recently passed hate crimes amendment.
This measure was an amendment to a national defense authorization bill for the 2010 fiscal year. Republicans have rightly pointed out that hate crimes have little in common with military spending and that the Democrats have thus forced their hand.
While I support the broadened definition of hate crimes and the penalties that come with it, I find this tactic deplorable. Both Republicans and Democrats utilize this fishy tactic of adding off-topic, or non-germane, amendments in order to enact measures that otherwise may not be passed.
The Democrats are, of course, in the majority. And furthermore, these sorts of underhanded (what Mehta calls “fishy”) tactics are a relative rarity for them, compared to the other side. While the Senate Democratic caucus spent most of the early Bush years placidly letting themselves be steamrolled, the GOP kicked off their days in the minority by setting a new record for number of threatened filibusters.
My point here isn’t to highlight Republican obstinacy, because you already know about that. Instead, I’m going to suggest that Democrats aren’t taking advantage of parliamentary procedure enough, and this stray example of fishiness is commendable. Thanks mostly to weak-kneed leadership from Harry Reid (pictured) and a powerful Blue Dog contingent that makes an electoral strategy of acquiescing to the entire Republican platform, the party’s been way too nice and, as a result, extremely ineffective.
Now, hard-nosed rules-gaming tactics are bad optics, and frequently get derided as undemocratic, but the truth is that they’re more un-undemocratic. Remember that the Senate is a fundamentally undemocratic institution (this is even more true historically; most states didn’t elect senators by popular vote until the twentieth century). Because of some of the rules Mehta brings up, like the filibuster, broadly popular Democratic initiatives (public option, anyone?) are getting mired in parliamentary maneuvering. But while some of these rules are a problem, the more immediate problem is that only one party has the chutzpah to use them to their advantage.
I’m not suggesting that the Dems turn into Tom DeLay–but we’re going to need to pass some legislation to address the global climate change crisis soon, and unless the Democrats grow a pair and ditch the delicate sensibility, then years from now, James Inhofe will be standing knee-deep in melted ice cap water on the Senate floor and filibustering by reading the “global cooling” chapter from SuperMegaUltraFreakonomics.
Of course, there’s another way to deal with the problem, one that would allow for more open debate and actually getting stuff done: as in most cases, I’m with the terrifying intellect that is my friend Dylan Matthews when he calls for the abolishment of the Senate. Not that it would ever happen in a million, years, but it’d be nice–we could get by just fine with a single, more democratic house of Congress.
Photo by Flickr user Center for American Progress used under a Creative Commons license.
9 Comments
Rob Stengel
Phillip Klugman
Abolishing the Senate is a terrible, terrible idea.
Why?
Phillip Klugman
The main reason I can think of is the reason that the Senate was made in the first place, to ensure equal representation to states who do not have large populations.
I mean I’m from California, which is the largest state population wise, but that doesn’t mean I think we should be able to plow over Wyoming or any other state when it comes to national matters.
Why not? Right now, a dude in Alaska casting his vote for a Senate candidate finds that his vote effectively counts for a hell of a lot more than his sister casting a vote in California. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I’d rather have proportional representation than representatives from tiny states wielding outsized influence over national policies.
It’s not like people in Wyoming are getting steamrolled. It’s just that all of a sudden their congressional district wields about as much power as anyone else’s. Somehow, I’m okay with that.
Phillip Klugman
I’m not saying that it is necessarily fair people votes count more than others but at the same time I disagree that this means we should strip them of their only means of actually legitimate influence on national politics, no matter how ridiculous whatever they want to do it.
I don’t think the senate is perfect and yes what many Senator’s do to block useful legislation is bullshit, but I think that doing away with it altogether isn’t the right move. While we may not find it fair that certain members can sabotage bills or things on the floor for no valid reason, in the end it is up to there constituents to decide whether they’re okay with that by either voting them into office or voting them out when election time comes.
While one may argue that it’s unfair that the rest of the country has to put up with this, I would agree and say that it is, but that is why we have the House of Representatives and the Executive Branch so that even when the Senate is doing nothing productive, our system still have means of going around them to get things done.
I’m not saying the system is perfect and yes it does need to be revamped and checked, but again I do not think that doing away with the Senate entirely is the right answer.
Problem is, we don’t have a means of going around the Senate. You can’t appoint most of the important figures in the executive or judicial branches without Senate approval. You obviously can’t pass a bill through just the House. And my point is that the small states do have influence in the House–they have influence on legislation proportional to how much they’re affected by it. I still don’t see the problem with that.
And the power to vote people out of office is a much weaker check on senators than it is on representatives. If you’re not running for reelection for another five years, you can do whatever the hell you want and hope people won’t remember.
You’ve already acknowledged just how bad the Senate is at the whole legislation thing–if you want to get a sense of how responsive they are to voter’s needs, just compare that terrible record to their ridiculously high incumbency rate.
Zach Maher
The senate provides a pretty useful check on the sometimes irrational, always fickle, will of the majority. There are crazy people in the HoR. Many more than you think.
I understand that the Senate was designed to be a check on the House. And if you think I don’t know about crazy people in the House, I’d suggest that you browse through this section’s archives.
But the question isn’t whether or not it’s a check, it’s worth or not it’s a productive check. I’m not opposed to restraints on the will of the majority if they’re going towards, say, protecting basic rights. But if what we’re talking about is just a chamber of Congress where career politicians can more effectively represent moneyed interests to block needed reform, that’s something I’m less interested in.
Leave a Reply
I definitely agree when it comes to abolishing the Senate.