Repeal the 17th!
Following our recent discussion on the merits of public service to the commonwealth, I would like to change the subject slightly to what form should the institutions of our Republic take?
There's a common assumption - not among you, dear reader, enlightened as you are - among most people that more direct democracy is, on the whole, better. The prospect is held out to us of special interests dethroned, protected incumbents removed from office, and the people's will being executed with unswerving fidelity: if only our government were more directly accountable to the people in all things!
The problem is that the historical record doesn't back this line of thinking. The ancient Greek city-states' chief downfall was their excessive reliance on popular assemblies and the demagogues they bred; the Roman Republic fell victim to the mob and through them, the generals; the French Revolution turned from a popular uprising to a Reign of Terror to a conquering emperor.
In our own country, we have fallen prey to this type of thinking since the ratification of the Constitution. But perhaps our most grievous mistake in this regard was the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators (prior to this, they had been selected by state legislators, for the purpose of representing state interests in Washington). As this article asserts, it may have actually exacerbated the growing problems of direct democracy in a branch meant to be insulated from popular pressures:
In retrospect, the amendment failed to accomplish what was expected of it, and in most cases failed dismally. Exorbitant expenditures, alliances with well-financed lobby groups, and electioneering sleights-of-hand have continued to characterize Senate campaigns long after the constitutional nostrum was implemented. In fact, such tendencies have grown increasingly problematic. Insofar as the Senate also has participated in lavishing vast sums on federal projects of dubious value to the general welfare, and producing encyclopedic volumes of legislation that never will be read or understood by the great mass of Americans, it can hardly be the case that popular elections have strengthened the upper chamber's resistance to the advances of special interests.
So, I suggest repealing the 17th and returning the authority back to the state governments. Do you agree?
posted by Joshua @ 7:07 PM
7 Comments:
I heartily disagree. For one thing, I find state legislators far more corruptable than the general public. For another thing, in our modern world, I think that six year terms are more than long enough to effectively sidestep the appeal of public interest.
My one problem with the Senate is that I find it a little... archaic. A body that consider Alaska and Wyoming equal to New York and California due solely to old and now inflexible geographical boundaries, which can now be seen as arbitrary at best, can only serve to benefit an oddly-chosen few. In fact, the way the senate currently operates, the citizens of the least-populous staes hold the most power, which has not only badly skeweed recent elections, but which has catered the political argument towards the few rather than the many. None of these problems would be solved by handing the reigns over the state legislatures, who would quickly choose their favorite puppets and dismiss them for making prudent compromises. The saving grace of the senate is that it is (beyond the appointed judiciary) the area of U.S. government least affected by day-to-day politics. People may bitch about Ted Kennedy, but his record shows him as a moderate who crosses the aisle for worthwhile change more than anyone from either side. He is, in fact, effective and great at his job. His electorate know this. However, the Massachusettes State Legislature might view it differently based on purely local concerns, where one demagogue from Springfield could override/threaten/blackmail the rest of the crowd into letting him go.
Remember, when you let Politicians, particularly more than one, appoint officials, their selections will become more and more milquetoast over time.
This is the question, isn't it: whether you think our Founders were largely right on principle but wrong on some details, or wrong on some basic principles.
I belong to the former camp. While I think the Founders got some of the details woefully wrong - the 3/5ths compromise over slavery being most obvious - I agree with their basic principle.
By 'basic principle' I mean the idea that power should be distributed between different institutions, each representing a different constituency. The people were given the House, the state were given the Senate, and the Republic as a whole was given the Presidency. The idea being, the more possible 'factions' represented in government, the less likely one faction could seize the reigns with swift action.
I don't think this idea is archaic in the least. If there were no Senate, the urban centers would claim total political power in short order; if there were no House, the rural states would run the country. Either way, large groups of people would be effectively disenfranchised. I would rather that there must be compromise between the different interests, that laws change slowly with the consent of all involved, and that we have a stable Republic.
Terrible idea, I think, for many of the reasons mentioned above. A lovely and timely example of state-level corruption would be Kentucky. Their GOP Governor, Ernie Fletcher, is engulfed in a major patronage scandal with approval ratings below 30%.
But that's just the 15 indictment sort of corruption that makes for a nice story. What more concerns me is that repealing the 17th would open the Senate up to the same sort of partisan rancor that infects the Junior Varsity team of American politics. Let's not forget that it's state legislators that draw almost all the redistricting lines and have created the lovely gerrymanders that breed increasing partisanship on both sides in the House. I think we've seen how productive that's been. With more partisan and more corruptible state legislators picking our Senators, I think we'd quickly lose the moderate and thoughtful nature of that body as the DeLays of the world slowly gained influence - ultimately making compromises, like the bipartisan Gang of 14 that stopped the nuclear option, an impossibility.
I understand everyone's concern that repeal of the 17th would lead to a tidal wive of corruption and hyper-partisanship (like in the House), but I think this is contrary to theory and past experience.
I don't agree that making the Senate's method of election less like the House (i.e., indirect election) will make it more like the House politically. Of the three branches of our federal government, which is generally viewed as the most circumspect, thoughtful, and free for partisan considerations? I would wager one would say the Supreme Court, a body composed of members appointed for life by the political branches!
Baker, you raised a good point with respect to the 'JV' team of American politics, the same types who redistrict in such a partisan manner. I will answer your objection on two grounds.
1) Historical Evidence: Daniel Webster. John Calhoun. Henry Clay. Henry Cabot Lodge. Charles Sumner. James Monroe. James Blaine. This is just a small sample of pre-1913 Senators, ones who - at least at the beginning of their terms - did not face a popular vote. Would you honestly prefer senators from the post-1913 re-organization? These were all men known for compromise, the virtue that you say appointment will remove. Missouri Compromise, anyone?
2) Practical Experience: In addition to making the Senate less partisan and likely to curry favor with the people, the appointment procedure would place more emphasis on the elections (direct, as always) of state Legislatures, bring local government more to the forefront of people's minds. How can this be anything but an unalloyed good? In fact, might it -by shining a brighter light - do much to reduce corruption at this level? Something to consider.
Apologies for not responding sooner, it's been a bit busy over here. Silly bosses think I should get work done before my last day for some reason.
My problem, Tacitean, is fundamentally with your 2nd point of Practical Experience. It is the, as you remind us, always directly elected, state legislatures that are responsible for the partisan gerrymanders of the House today. Instead of wielding their powers responsibly, they continue to foster a greater and greater sense of partisanship with every re-drawing of the district lines. And with today's Supreme Court decision "state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like -- not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital." I've seen several articles (and will link to them when I'm given the time) citing partisan gerrymandering, as controlled by the state legislatures, as a primary reason for the increasingly polarized politics of our times - especially in the House. Primary systems are low voter turnout affairs compared to general elections, attracting the more ideological and excited members of the parties. And by creating increasingly safe districts, we've enhanced the importance of the primaries and the influence of these more partisan voters, leading to less moderate members from either side of the aisle.
And it is that less than admirable track record of the state legislatures – now legally allowed to redistrict whenever they’d like, as Texas did – that I find disturbing. Why should we reward the state legislatures with more power and influence over electing Senators when their recent behavior in helping determine House members has been so disappointing?
As for historical evidence, to be very short indeed, I’d argue that the two-party system has solidified and strengthened, especially in the modern politic age of political primaries, voter databases, polished media operations, and unprecedented fundraising, making such historical comparisons difficult while going against Washington’s warning on factions. Also, of the names you named, quite a few got their start in the House.
Back to dulling my brain cells.
If anything, I would (while the boss is away) recommend moving influence away from the state legislatures in drawing House districts as one state has done so far. From the National Conference of State Legislatures: "Iowa conducts redistricting unlike any other state. Iowa does not put the task of drawing district boundaries in the hands of either a commission or the elected legislators. Instead nonpartisan legislative staff develop the plans which are then approved or rejected by the legislature. Furthermore, Iowa is unique in that the plans for the Iowa House and Senate as well as U.S. House districts are drawn without any political data or information such as the addresses of incumbents."
Sadly, referendums on similar measures were recently defeated by the voters of Ohio and California.
Perhaps there is room for compromise! If all states had Iowa-style re-districting such as you advocate, would you be willing to consider a repeal of the 17th?
Post a Comment
<< Home