It is interesting how two people can read exactly the same piece and come away with completely different impressions. Last week, like my fellow Brainstormer, Dianne Auer Jones, I read the piece in The Washington Post by columnist E. J. Dionne. She rather took exception to his sloppy use of statistics to argue for a tax increase for those folk making more than a quarter of a million dollars per year. She may be right, although to be fair all around (including to some of the rather crabby people who commented on her piece), I think we all agree that taxes must go up (or be restored to original levels) and that the rich are a good place to start.
I confess that in my reading I missed almost all of this entirely, because I was focused on the second half of the column, where Dionne starts to write about the messed up political system that he sees as underlying a lot of our troubles, including those about money. In particular, he writes about the U.S. Senate and how fundamentally undemocratic it truly is:
“When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13 to 1. Now, it’s 68 to 1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11 percent of the nation’s population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89 percent of our population. And you wonder why it’s so hard to get anything done in Washington?”
I have lived full time in the U.S. for 10 years now, but even before when I lived next door, I simply could not see how people accept the Senate’s imbalance. Why are people not yelling about it nonstop? In the U.S., we make so much about being a democracy, but we simply aren’t. In 2000, the population of California was 34 million people. The combined population of the two Dakotas (and they are not the smallest states) was less than a million and a half. How can one justify giving California two senators and the Dakotas four? It’s simply crazy.
It is also increasingly dangerous. I have just spent the last couple of days doing a massive review (for The Chronicle) of a dozen books on global warming. They range from the sensible to the sensational. But the message is the same throughout. “Folks, we are in big trouble and it’s only getting worse.” Because of our consumption of fossil fuels, we really are making a desert out of our planet. And that is apart from the many places that we are condemning to a life under water. Like most people in the north of Florida, I am not overly keen on the bullying ways of Miami, but I really don’t want to see it 10 feet under.
Can we solve the problems? Quite possibly not. It is increasingly clear that this is a global issue and most places on the globe are not ready to take action. Places like India and China feel, with some justification, that it is their turn now to take a place at the table of plenty and that they are not going to be deterred by scary scenarios from those who have pigged out for the last couple of centuries or more. But if doing something will not necessarily lead to safety, you can be sure that not doing something will almost certainly lead away from safety. And there is obviously a lot that we could do on our own, cutting down on the things that lead to global warming. We could reduce our reliance on fossil fuels an incredible amount, by conservation and by exploring vigorously other sources of energy. The wind may not blow that much in Tallahassee but we sure do get a lot of sunshine. It has been over a hundred degrees almost every day this last week.
And of course, by cutting down on the use of fossil fuels, we can start to escape the thrall of those horrible regimes in the Middle East—regimes that treat women like dirt and gays and others far worse. And this is not to mention how a drive towards reducing fuel consumption could generate innovation and jobs and a huge amount more. I only have to drive 10 miles north, into Georgia, to see how the cotton business has been outsourced. Why not fill the empty mills with solar-panel construction?
In every way, taking vigorous action is really a no-brainer. But you know and I know how likely it is that the U.S. Senate will take vigorous action in this sort of direction. Goodness, they had to be half-nelsoned into extending unemployment insurance for desperate fellow citizens—fellow citizens, of course, much more likely to live in the big industrial states than in rural America.
Getting rid of the filibuster will be a start. It has no constitutional justification. And we have seen in the last two years how it has been used to cramp what was a clear message from the nation in 2008 about the direction the country should take after the Bush Administration. But why should the Senate continue to be constituted as it is? Why should we be stuck with the decisions of a late-18th-century bunch of English-style gentlemen?
Of course, there is no absolute reason why we should be so stuck. Things were changed as we became more sensitive to the fact that blacks and women are real human beings. So why not change things in the light of the fact that we live in a very different world from two hundred plus years ago? We have big cities and industrial states. Population numbers and distributions have changed, and these call for new directives and ways of doing things.
If the whole question of states’ rights is raised—although we saw in the Bush-Gore election how the Supreme Court regards those—and it is felt that each state must have the same number, what about some compromise as they reached in England over the House of Lords at the beginning of the last century? If the Senate turns back something voted on by the far more representative House, and does so several times (say three), then it goes automatically up to the President.
I am sure that there are other ideas worth considering. My point is that the time has come when we should be considering them. Has the U.S. peaked and are we now on a decline? Who can say for sure, but a good case can be made for saying this. What does seem to be sure is that, unless we can get our political act together, the case for decline grows stronger. And even if it turns out that compared to others we continue to do well, in the face of the threats to our planet might it not well be the case that we are all going to hell in a hand basket, or more accurately all boiling to death in a soup of carbon dioxide? And in major part because we did not have the will or ability to take preventative action.
19 Responses to Our Undemocratic Senate
livefreeordie2 - August 1, 2010 at 9:58 pm
You, Sir, are full of crap. If you are so fond of the solution imposed on the UK House of Lords by the Liberals, then I suggest you place yourself under their jurisdiction. That you apparently have no idea why the bicameral legistature of the United States is set up the way it is make me wonder how you obtained the US Citizenship that you bragged about. How dare you, Sir! How dare you!The House of Representatives represents the people and is based upon population. The Senate represents the states and each state is equal. That’s right! We have the same Senate representation in New Hampshire that you have in Florida. I’m thrilled, by the way, that this fact gets under your skin. And thank God the founders formulated the US Constitution is such a fashion that it prevents people like you from destroying the greatest nation on the planet. If we have peak and are now on the decline, it is because of people like you. And by the way, haven’t you heard? The whole Global Warming thing is a hoax. You’ve apparently been reading the group think literature. Just as the oil spill in the gulf just ain’t the greatest catastrophe in human history (oops! Where’s the oil?), global warming is a fantasy. How do I know? Well, anytime someone tells me that, “we don’t know for sure, but we don’t have time to study and we must act now or we’ll all die,” it’s crap. . . a topic with which you, Sir, seem to be intimately familiar.
jffoster - August 2, 2010 at 8:31 am
Mr. Cruse, shile I concur in part and in judgement with No 1, I will take a somewhat different tack and suggest that you might want to read the Constitution of the United States of America. Here is Article V in its entirity:ARTICLE V> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”Your attention calls to the very last part, the part reading “, and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”Mr. Cruse, we do not have a parliamentary system. We have a congressional system with three separate branches of government. Our States are NOT administrative provinces of a central government, although the bureaucratic would be dictators inside the belt way would like them to be and try sometimes to so treat them. The United STATES are, yes ARE (United States is a plural noun in the Constitution) a Federaal Repbulic of Sovereign States. The House of Representatives is a representation of “the People”, albeit by States, while the Senate is an assembly of representative of the States. You say that the filibuster “has no constitutional justification.” But it has no Constitutional prohibition either and the Constitution does specify in Article I that each house shall make its own rules of procedure and be the judge of the qualifications of its members.
isambard - August 2, 2010 at 10:50 am
Only one postwar constitution – that of the Philippines – has followed the United States model. Everyone else has had the sense to adopt a parliamentary model.The Founders, whom I much admire, gave equal representation to the states only in order to get the Constitution accepted; it was, in effect, a bribe paid by Virginia to secure the assent of Rhode Island, whose capacity for self-centred obstruction had been amply demonstrated during the war. The modern version of the filibuster is a real idiocy; you only have to say you’ll filibuster and you’ve done it. Real filibusters need strong bladders, strong drink, and an ability to do without sleep. The Senate accepts all this because it likes to act by consensus, but the vice of any system that places a high value on consensus is that it allows representatives in a strong tactical position to exact an absurdly high price for their assent, cf Senators Brownback and Landieu and the posturing of Scott Brown. (Consider also the history of Poland, and the unhappy effects of the liberum veto.) The veto power of a very few politicians means it is possible for the well-off to buy the services of elected politicians for a fairly small outlay. The Founders wanted to recreat the Roman Republic; they did so with great skill. Just as the Roman Republic turned into a plutocracy, so has the United States. Who knows what will happen next, but EJ Dionne is plainly right about the absurdity of the present set up. There is, however, no chance whatever of improvement, because the people who’d need to make the changes are those who benefit from the present state of affairs, and the anger of the populace isn’t directed towards arcane institutional arrangements but figments of their imagination such as ‘big’ – rather than corrupt and incompetent – government. In any event, major constitutional overhauls almost never occur outside war, civil war, or very near misses such as the crisis that led to the creation of the Fifth Republic in France.
jffoster - August 2, 2010 at 11:39 am
No 3, what you call a “bribe” others call _compromise_. And if memory serves accurately, I believe there was a filibuster broken in the Senate just last week.
isambard - August 2, 2010 at 3:39 pm
No 4. And conversely.
livefreeordie2 - August 2, 2010 at 9:46 pm
You wanna know who hates the filibuster? The party in power with less than the 60 votes needed to force cloture. Our esteemed blog author probably had no problem with the filibuster during the years when the Republicans held the majority. And if and when the Republicans take back the Senate in November, he will undoubtedly declare the filibuster to be the bravest of all sentinels of democracy.isambard #3 – So, let me get this straight. There are all these other nations that had the good sense to adopt a parliamentary form of government – except the PI – and yet you live in this foolish country? Good Lord, man! Can we assume your departure to one of these havens of common sense is imminent?
aricia2010 - August 3, 2010 at 12:47 am
“Can we assume your departure to one of these havens of common sense is imminent?”This rhetorical device is manifestly ridiculous and its use should be discontinued. It’s possible to be part of a system and to work to make that system better. If I don’t like the way my hometown manages communal areas, I don’t just pack up and move to a city with more beautiful parks. Instead, I organize citizens, write op-eds, and fight as hard as I can to change things for the better. That’s what keeps America strong; we are not a nation of people who think this is the best of all possible worlds.
livefreeordie2 - August 3, 2010 at 6:38 am
aricia2010 #7 – So. . . let me get this straight. If you lived in a town that featured a system you didn’t like, but the vast majority of its citizen revered. And all around you, there were towns you thought were much, much better, you’d be happier trying to ruin life for everyone rather than move to a place you already considered much better? Where’s the sense in that?I do completely agree that the US is not the best of all possible worlds – it’s just far better than anyplace else on this Earth.
stinkcat - August 3, 2010 at 8:50 am
“I do completely agree that the US is not the best of all possible worlds – it’s just far better than anyplace else on this Earth.”After all, Mexico doesn’t have a problem with too many Americans sneaking over the border to get into that haven of opportunity and freedom.
isambard - August 3, 2010 at 9:29 am
1. Why does NH2(items 6 and 9) think he/she/it/they/whatever knows where I live? I don’t believe that NH2 lives in any known reality at all. Nor indeed that NH2 exists, unless perhaps as a consortium of lunatics in some good-natured psychiatric facility where they allow the inmates to play with computers. In the alternative NH2 may have read too much Alice through the Looking Glass and confused himself/herself/themselves with the White Queen, who set herself to believe as many as five impossible things before breakfast.2. As to whether anywhere is better than anywhere else on earth, it seems to me to be a daft question; one needs to ask, better for whom, and better in what ways? 3. And in any event, one of the things that Americans pride themselves on if their capacity to make things work better; a reverential attitude to a political system that is a) a slow-moving and expensive anarchronism, and b) rigged for the benefit of the already over-advantaged gets in the way of improvement. It is a point made by innumerable patriotic Americans over very many years. 4. I have always thought the filibuster a bad thing whoever uses it; but that’s because I would like to see majority rule, with a lot less gerrymandering, less of a conspiracy between parties to rig the system to favour incumbents, less money in elections, and a good deal else. I can’t see any of this happening, but it doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be a good idea, only that this sort of system is too sclerotic to fix itself except in a real crisis.
goxewu - August 3, 2010 at 10:22 am
Re #10:Quelle coincidence, I always say to myself, when:Most people who think Roman Catholicism is the best religion on Earth were born and raised Roman Catholics; most people who think Israel is the most noble country on Earth are Jews; most people who think the United States is the best place on Earth are Americans; most people who think English is the best language on Earth are native English speakers; most people who think that 5,000 years of continuous culture represents the greatest human achievement are Chinese; most people who think that black people have a special sense of “soul” are black; most people who think Salsa is the best music on Earth are Latino, and so on and so on and so on.Where you stand, the man said, depends on where you sit. Or, more to the point, very few human beings I know circled the Earth in a satellite, electronically monitored cultural, social and political samples from every country on Earth and then said, “I’ve made my choice; I’ll go live in [fill in the blank].”Personally, if I spoke German and French, could ski, and knew accounting, I’d probably pick Switzerland. But I don’t, so America is stuck with ol’ left-of-center, truculent me.
stinkcat - August 3, 2010 at 10:36 am
“most people who think the United States is the best place on Earth are Americans; most people who think English is the best language on Earth are native English speakers”Even many who don’t live here must have a pretty high opinion of the place, after all if people are willing to take the risk of sneaking into the country it must have something going for it.
gplm2000 - August 3, 2010 at 11:03 am
Ruse’s underlying reason for change: “Why should we be stuck with the decisions of a late-18th-century bunch of English-style gentlemen?” Disparage our western-european history, the most successful society in the history of the world. This type of academic nonsense is rampant in US colleges.Ruse never attacks the real cause of alarm for our Republic: The gerrymandering of voting districts based on political party and race to achieve partisan victories. At the grassroots level we are all losing our right to choose Senators, House Reps. and Presidents. Something like 97% of the incumbents are re-elected or have no opposition. Ridiculous. Yet Ruse insists that we throw-out our checks and balances so a progressive slate of laws can be passed. Hmmm.
goxewu - August 3, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Re #12:People who are poorer than most Mexicans try to sneak into Mexico. People who are poorer than most Italians try to sneak into Italy. People who are poorer than most South Africans try to sneak into South Africa. People who are poorer than….
jstarcs - August 9, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I’m with livefreeordie2. To paraphrase George Will, the most beautiful word in the English language is “gridlock.” The purpose of the Senate is to act as a saucer to cool the hot coffee of the ardent reformers. In the current era of runaway government expansion, anything that slows down the “progress” is fine with me. Our liberties are at stake. These “reforms” should be fought hammer and tongs.
exlecturer - August 11, 2010 at 2:08 pm
The definition of a true democracy:Three wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.I’ll keep our republic, three branches and all, thank you very much.
bwillis1975 - August 12, 2010 at 12:19 am
The problem is, if you read your early American history, you would realize that the Senate was meant to function exactly on this basis. The House is the democratic branch of Congress and the Senate was meant to give a larger voice to smaller states on an egalitarian representative basis. Perhaps it seems unfair (and I would agree that these numbers are ludicrous), but that was what the “founders” meant to establish. I am as infuriated about the filibustering process used by the right as you are, but blame the founders, not the current process. If we constitutionally addressed that imbalance, we would be eradicating the purpose of the Senate. The real issue is that those states are currently electing radical and party-lined Senators. THAT is against the wishes of the “founders” as early as Jeffersonian partisanship in the form of the Anti-Federalists. Since that point, politicans have drawn partisan lines and stuck to those ranks rather than truly representing the interests of their constituencies.
trendisnotdestiny - August 12, 2010 at 7:40 pm
@ To all readersAs Zinn points out, the problem with American History is that it is often written by exceptionalists or winners whose story rarely fits the outcome. Those who win the wars write history, but it has become harder and harder to call America exceptional as we confront our past (in the name of profit or what TP’ers call freedom).It would be nice if we as a culture were more reflective about what we have done as a country in the world: exterminating native americans, slave trade imports and penury, covert wars, torture, assassinations, corporate plunder, spreading capitalistic toxins and financial cancer (CDS), allowing profitable businesses to exist that shouldn’t: sex trade, drugs, and weapons…. There is always someone wanting to invoke our forefathers as means to attach to some righteous narrative, but our country has much to be ashamed for and much redemption to attempt before spouting off how a great a country this is…. (no Herb Brooks moments here to wash away culpability) Where are you people from?????? This is a clearly a time where the empire is crumbling. And some of you stereotypically are singing our greatness… Go to Flint, Michigan to see the greatness or Shakertown, OH…. Go see rural Pennsylvannia or West Virgina coal mines for this supposed higher level culture. Open your eyes to the homeless in LA and Miami for exceptionalism…. Go see section 8 housing applicant lines in Atlanta or food kitchens in East St. Louis…. Exceptionally blind to the reality of REAL Americans… Some call for “a let’s harken back to a time 234 years ago” moment that has little reality with the present, but lets still call ourselves a great civilization…. Listen to Goxewu on this one folks, Erma Bombeck once wrote the grass is always greener on the other side…. This is the nature of human existence, but our job as academics is to surgically isolate fact from fiction…. We are better served to observe what is happening here and now than to spout off about our colonizing and often misunderstood other history (you know, the one not in our history books)
marka - August 17, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Hmm … I doubt most of us would actually want to live in a pure ‘democracy’. Many of the ‘founders,’ and many since, have been worried about the mob. Just look @ the French revolution, purportedly a ‘pure’ government of the people (mob), or the various experiments with communism, again purportedly governments of the people. As noted by others, the Senate is not designed to be democratic, and we have not had a democracy under the Constitution – it is a republic.Furthermore, concern about the ‘filibuster’ is misplaced. There are plenty of voting mechanisms by which ‘supermajorities’ are required – many are 2/3 or 3/4, making the 3/5 (60 out of 100) to override a filibuster look easy.In other words, there is nothing sacred about ‘majority rule’ in a ‘democracy’ – or are you trying to tell me that if 51 vote one way, and 49 another, the 51 have a ‘right’ to impose their view on the other 49? Plenty of problems with simple majority schemes, which is why many systems require supermajorities – a mere 2% difference is, from a statistical standpoint, often within the margin of measurement error – and therefore is no difference at all.