Even Senators agree: The Senate is a bad, bad place

Matt Yglesias quotes Arlen Specter on how the Senate is a nasty, mean place.  But then he goes on to discuss something more relevant:  the Senate's role throughout our history in promulgating immoral, undemocratic law and governmental values.

"The truth of the matter is that the Senate has always been problematic. Like the health care bill, the United States Constitution was the result of pragmatic political compromise. That entailed excepting some truly odious compromises—like the existence of chattel slavery. Less odious, but similar in spirit, was giving in to hardball politics from the likes of Delaware and accepting the principle that there should be a special house of the legislature designed to undermine democratic accountability. A few decades down the road, the Senate emerged as the stronghold of the antebellum “slave power.” Henry Adams wrote early in the 20th century that “The most troublesome task of a reform President is bringing the Senate back to decency.” Soon after, the Senate became the place where anti-lynching bills went to die, then later the place where civil rights legislation went to die."  (Emphasis added.)

 It's great how blunt Yglesias is (my first disclosure: we went to the same college, decades apart, and I really don't think that effects my opinion of him.)  However, like everyone else, he seems incapable of speaking, or possibly imagining, real change to fix this problem.  He briefly mentions removing the filibuster, and then discusses in detail how to create more accountability via changing chairmanship rules.   While I think the suggested change is fine, it seems insignificant to the broader problems of Senate corruption, as discussed in my Welcome post.

 Likewise Ezra Klein leads his post on  how cruel the Senate is with a picture of old, sick Senator Byrd being wheeled into the chamber last night to break the filibuster, and vaguely mentions that the rules need to change.  Yes, clearly the idea of all this Senate comity is nonsense.  So is the fact that a very old man is being kept propped up in order keep West Virginia voting democratically on all these cloture votes, frankly.   Rather than address the fundamental corruption that both these things are symptoms of, he, too, merely suggests that the Senate should change its rules.

What are they afraid of?  The Senate, from its inception violated the spirit of the constitution, and functions today in a damagingly undemocratic way.  Our Constitution is intended to be a living, breathing document.  We're supposed to make changes.  The Senate's existence is in many ways the last vestige of the compromises made to include the slave-owning states in the South.  Slavery has been outlawed.  There's no purpose to the Senate now.  It is like our appendix.  We don't need it any more.  For most people, the appendix doesn't cause any trouble, but if it becomes infected, it can kill you.  Surgery removes the infected organ, and then the patient is fine.  It's time to remove the Senate, and return our body politic to some semblance of health.

People are talking about the Senate problem

 James Fallows, Kevin Drum and Paul Krugman all discuss today the problem of having an unconstitutional, supermajority rule Senate. 

Fallows: The Filibuster: Let's Talk About It

Drum: The 60 Vote Conundum

Krugman: A Dangerous Dysfunction

Only Professor Krugman even hints at the idea of forcing the Senate to change its rules.   All three point out that the super-majority is a modern innovation and a violation of the intent of the founders -- and everybody else in the government until the 1990s.  But everybody seems afraid to force the issue.  I don't really understand why.  If we're such a center-right nation, then why are we allowing such radicalism in one of our branches of government?

Mr. Fallows' main point is that insiders all know that the filibuster is now used to block ALL legislation that can't get 60 votes, but that most citizens don't really understand that.  His discussion covers the details well, so if this is a surprise to you, then read his piece.  But just to be extra clear:


The current filibuster is used on every vote on every piece of legislation, and entails NO sacrifice on the part of those using it.  


There's no speechmaking until you're hoarse.  No cots in the hall.  Nobody has to show up, even.  It's easy, it's painless and so it is used constantly.   This means to open discussion on a bill you need 60 votes.  To close discussion you need 60 votes.  If you can't close discussion, you can't vote on the actual bill. 

The reimportance of drugs amendment FAILED with 51 votes.  

Think about that for a minute.  With all the corruption, all the lobbyists, all cowardice, the bill that would have allowed Americans to get low-cost drugs from other countries and save the Federal Government money had a majority of votes cast in its favor.  But it "failed" because it only had 51 votes.  How could that happen?  Apparently, Senators Reid and McConnell agreed that every vote would need 60 ayes on health care, just to keep the process moving along -- further enshrining the supermajority and violating the intent and design of the Constitution.

I realize that if a majority could have passed the bill, President Obama might then have just pressured a few more Democratic Senators to do his bidding.  But when he's engaging in back alley deals to benefit his reelection at the expense of the nation, I don't see why he shouldn't at least have to work a little harder to do it, and be forced more into the open about what he is doing.  He wants some of that Pharma money flowing into his and the party's coffers for their campaigns.  That, like the current usage of the filibuster, is something average citizens should be aware of, particularly when they pick up their next prescription at the drug store.

Many people are talking about the problem of the Senate.  Nobody seems to have a good idea on how to reform it.

I have an idea: let's scrap it.

Welcome

This blog intends to be very focused. Its goal is to raise awareness for the cleanest, clearest solution to the corruption and gridlock in federal government:

Eliminate the U.S. Senate

Why?

There are several problems with how the U.S. Senate currently functions, all of which work together to create a horrendously anti-democratic institution which passes corporatist-serving legislation while blocking and disemboweling anything that would lead to effective governance, services and revenues distributed to the majority of the population, or anything that would deprive major industries and large corporations of control, government protection, and revenue, even when such things would be not only in the nation's overall good, but in that industry or corporation's long-term interest.

Everybody focuses on the filibuster, and with good reason. The current use of the filibuster, which functionally requires 60 votes instead of 50+1 for anything to pass the Senate, is blatently corrupt and anti-democratic. It goes against the intent of the founders, so any intellectually honest conservative would also demand its removal. The immediate cancellation of the filibuster would be a huge improvement in governmental function. But that's not going to happen. Why?

In part, it's not going to happen because individual Senators want to keep that intoxicating power. They want to get to be Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson next time. It's the same flawed, emotive reasoning that leads poor people to demand the elimination of the estate tax -- they would rather have the right to continue to dream of wealth, than accept the loss of that dream and with it, more robust government services or a lower tax bill for themselves.

Also, the two parties want to be able to block each other. Without the filibuster, the Republic minority's current strategy would be meaningless.

This is also counter to the original design of our government under the Constitution, and against the the intent of the founders. While American government may be intentionally slow and inefficient, it is specifically designed to avoid a log-jam in which two parties composed of the same members continually block each other. Don't take my word for it: go read James Madison's Federalist #10. Our legislative process is designed to force parties to negotiate and compromise. This new usage of the filibuster negates both those forces.

But this sparkly new execution of the filibuster does something else, too. It grants veto power to Senators from states with very small populations. These Senators frequently use that power not in the interests of their states, but in fealty to corporations and industries that personally enrich them. Those small states will vote them in again and again, because it's in their rational self-interest to have a senator with a lot of senority. (There are other, less benign reasons for this, but even if we wiped everything else away, valid self-interest would still be a factor.) So these Senators have little to fear from doing the bidding of their corporate masters. Is that inflammatory way to frame it? Yes. Is it valid, though? Fiery rhetoric isn't necessarily wrong.

The fact is, Nebraska and Montana (for example) are the equivalent of rotten boroughs. Both are practically depopulated. There are less than a million people in Montana, and less than two million in Nebraska. There are fewer people in Nebraska than in the city of Los Angeles. If we used a population formula taken from the original Northwest territories plan and used the same ratio today, I strongly suspect that Nebraska, Montana and a couple of other states would be considered too unpopulated to be granted statehood.

I don't expect to abolish the Senate this year. Frankly, I'd be pretty happy if they'd just stop abusing the filibuster and behave with a modicum of honor. It would be nice if the flag waving types demonstrated that they had read and understood the Constitution. But I think complaining is pointless. Complaining about whether the President is weak, foolish or corrupt is also pointless. Without the filibuster, meaningful legislation would reach his desk. At the very least, we'd KNOW if he willing to enact progressive legislation, and it would be more difficult for him to block it, if that was his desire.

If people want real change, then the change they should seek is eliminating an institution that was not originally in the plan anyway. The modern United States does not need the Senate. Let's get rid of it.