The Senate is Broken

Over the weekend, during a drive to and from New York I listened to Steven Johnson's enjoyable and stimulating new book The Invention of Air. It's about a British scientist/preacher/philosopher named Joseph Priestly who, among other things, discovered oxygen, invented soda and was good friends with Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Any time I revisit the Founders, their writing and their thinking, I'm always struck by the streak of Burkean conservatism that ran through many of them. Their fear of the mob (and, well, democracy) and their desire to keep power broadly distributed, but also out of the hands of the riff raff. In many respects the arc of American political history is more and more democracy, wider circles of enfranchisment, preserving the founder's belief in checks and balances, while jettisoning their distrust of the ability of people to effectively self-govern.

The massive exception to this is the United States senate, which has only grown more undemocratic and more minoritarian over the years. Since population distributions have grown more unequal (California has 68 times the people of Wyoming), the imbalance of representation has also grown. Filibusters have gone from being a relatively rarely invoked tactical gambit, to a de facto super majority requirement for all legislation. And the evolution of the "hold" means that each individual senator can more or less bring the body to a halt.

All this by way of recommending this excellent piece by Norm Ornstein on the subject. He argues persuasively that the senate is "broken." I'm increasingly of the opinion that if we want the kind of change we need in this country, the Senate has to change first.

Comments (42)

1. thanks for the inspiration! (maybe)

   Posted by darladoon at 03/31/2009 @ 11:40am

2. "I'm increasingly of the opinion that if we want the kind of change we need in this country, the Senate has to change first."

   So Mr. Hayes, what are your thoughts on term limits for both Houses then?

   Posted by ACook at 03/31/2009 @ 11:53am

3. 'I'm increasingly of the opinion that if we want the kind of change we need in this country, the Senate has to change first.'

   It is interesting to go back to the founding fathers at the Constitutional Covention. The senate is indeed a body designed to serve and preserve the status quo, but it is remarkable how quickly it moves to pass legislation of benefit to its benefactors (not the people but the special interst groups).

   Hamilton originally proposed that senators be elected for life and other aristocratic nonsense contrary to the supposed thing we rebelled against. I suppose we should be grateful that his plan wasn't adopted verbatim, but in so many ways, he got what he wanted. If senators are not elected for life, their incumbency and our election and campaign finance laws make it pretty difficult to make changes. The supremacy of Federal law over state law, etc., ensures Federalism and virtual veto power over state's rights.

   How the heck are you going to change the Senate without the approval of the senate? Revolution?

   Posted by OneVote at 03/31/2009 @ 11:58am

4. Well, Mr Hayes....

   it isn't going to happen.

   So work on something else.

   Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 12:05pm

5. Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 12:11pm

   Yes, the small REALISTIC things.

   But not eliminating the US Senate's composition or the filibuster...when it would take a Constitutional Amendment that neither the US Congress NOR a majority of the state legislatures is going to pass.

   Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 12:48pm

6. Electoral reform -> More than 2 Parties -> No Cloture

   Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Maybe we could round them all up and put them in an air tight glass prison and tell them they aren't getting out till they pass the legislation we want. Senators, being well known for unlimited "hot air" (CO2) would limit debate in order to conserve oxygen, and instead would focus on drafting and passing legislation quietly. Jason Priestly would approve I am sure.

   Posted by OneVote at 03/31/2009 @ 12:54pm

7. I respectfully clicked the link even though I was duly warned it was just Norm Ornstein. The American Enterrpise Institute Journal is not a place I would normally linger, and, indeed, I cannot say I more than skimmed the article. Nothing surprising -- he says filibusters and holds are bad, every Senator is guilty, and what's "new" is that the GOP is NOW practicing obstruction.

   But what about the Revolution of '94, you ask; hasn't this heightened assault been going on since then? Oh, no - Ornstein says Newt and his Contract just ran into the rigidity of "Bob Dole's Senate."

   This piece doesn't even qualify for a "stopped clock" level of rightness. It's just spin on what the GOP is doing, and a preemptive strike on anything the Dems might do to try to get around it. You might as well link to a piece by Cheney on the "importance of the oil regions" and say that he and Al Gore agree about the environment. The AEI is not for increased democratization of the Senate.

   Posted by RLawrence at 03/31/2009 @ 12:58pm

8. Jason Priestly would approve I am sure.

   Posted by OneVote at 03/31/2009 @ 12:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Whoops - Joe Priestly.

   Posted by OneVote at 03/31/2009 @ 1:01pm

9. Mr. Hayes, suggest you think "representative republic" and put first the Declaration of Independece, U.S.A. Constitution, and Bill of Rights first on your reading list! Get back to us on that!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 03/31/2009 @ 1:38pm

10. Posted by comancheamerican at 03/31/2009 @ 1:38pm

    RIO, where in the Declaration of Independence is "representative republic" mentioned?

    Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 1:46pm

11. Dude, they're..like...old. And Senator Plushy keeps trying to grab my butt.

    Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 1:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    No ass grabing allowed! This is a controlled experiment. But it is of interest to note:

    "The study participants' peak oxygen consumption levels during intercourse were moderate -- comparable to their oxygen consumption levels during moderate activities such as walking on level ground at 3 to 4 miles per hour, climbing stairs slowly or doing general housework such as vacuuming."

    'Senior Citizens & Sex

    Men with Chronic Heart Failure can have Active Sex Lives: Mayo Clinic Journal

    Middle aged men have peak heart rate during intercourse that's lower than heart rates during normal daily activities'

    SeniorJournal.com

    Theoretically, oxygen consumption of a filabuster speech would be near equivalent to that of prohibited activity.

    Posted by OneVote at 03/31/2009 @ 1:52pm

12. There's no way to get here from there. Amendments require 2/3 approval of both houses of Congress, so the Senate can kill it there. Then 3/4 of states, most of whom get disproportionate representation in the Senate, would have to vote to approve. Or 2/3 of legislatures would have to call for a constitutional convention and that's not happening either.

    I don't think the earlier amendment to allow direct election of Senators is a relevant counterpoint because it didn't change the fundamental disproportionality of the Senate nor its culture of excessive power for the minority. It was ultimately a superficial reform.

    So. What to do? I don't know.

    Posted by llachglin at 03/31/2009 @ 3:41pm

13. Posted by OneVote at 03/31/2009 @ 1:52pm

    I'm not sure I'm not hoping this devolves into a discussion about that guy from INXS.

    Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 2:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Better quit while we are ahead!

    Posted by OneVote at 03/31/2009 @ 3:45pm

14. "...the Senate has to change first."

    Amen, brother Hayes, but we all know that will never, ever happen. Even after we've become the two-bit, second-rate banana republic our government seems determined to create, the Senate will still be the Senate, the club for wealthy bounders, scoundrels, and scalawags.

    (And with incumbents being returned at a rate of 90-some percent, the citizens aren't helping.)

    Posted by Citizen54 at 03/31/2009 @ 7:10pm

15. The Senate used to be chosen by state legislators, and direct election didn't come about until some hundred odd years ago (I'm not a wonk so don't expect dates). Here in New York, our senior senator loves Wall Street and our junior senator loves corporations and guns.

    It's about money, and how much senators need. It's about diverse, often antagonistic interests senators need to cobble together in order to win elections. Multiply our two senators by fifty and you get what's wrong with the Senate.

    Mucking around with Senate rules and structure is fine with me, but you will still have a hundred hungry primates in the playground. As we are finding in New York State, as long as our State Senate was controlled by Republicans, Democrats could skate on/hide from the hard issues. Now, with a bare majority, Democrats' local concerns and struggles for power have paralyzed the State Senate once again. Without filibusters to hide behind, factions will reveal themselves.

    Posted by JFHill at 03/31/2009 @ 8:09pm

16. Here's what Sanford Levinson recommends for the undemocratic problems of the Senate -- and every other branch of the Federal government: a new Constitutional convention.

    "Shall Congress call a constitutional convention empowered to consider the adequacy of the Constitution and, if thought necessary, to draft a new constitution that, upon completion, will be submitted to the electorate for its approval or disapproval by majority vote?"

    I say: Yes.

    For details, I warmly recommend Levinson's book: OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: WHERE THE CONSTITUTION GOES WRONG (AND HOW WE THE PEOPLE CAN CORRECT IT) (2006)

    I know, "Mask," "it won't happen." But that's not my point. My point is, as always, that it should.

    "Since population distributions have grown more unequal (California has 68 times the people of Wyoming), the imbalance of representation [in the Senate] has also grown."

    This is plain indefensible. It is a relic of the pre-Civil War slaveocracy and needs to be removed, like a bad appendix.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 03/31/2009 @ 9:45pm

17. The problem, is that there is no way one can end run around the reality of a populace deliberately made, and subsequently kept (in some cases willfully so) ignorant.

    The congress is thus, if not direct, then after a fashion surely ... a reflection of the populace of whence they come. Modified and augmented by a lust for power over others. With available flaws in, and of character, honed by the odd controller or two ...

    It is as fascinating as it is ironic that it is seemingly easier, with a faster and more efficient path to end result(s), to dumb down a population after the electronic revolution engendered by television.

    A populace which by the time of the emergence of the freedom of the internet, stuck on "remote," as it were.

    Posted by V at 03/31/2009 @ 10:50pm

18. I'm just waiting for the first, "THIS IS A SOCIALIST PLOT TO OVERTHROW THIS COUNTRY" post.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/31/2009 @ 10:59pm

19. The Senate is Broken posted by Christopher Hayes on 03/31/2009 @ 11:29am

    There seems to be a large umbilical cord running from The Hill in Washington, D.C. to New York city and Wall Street. The pull of these two polls seem to be so strong as to pollute and corrupt all the human beings that go there. They also seem to be there for life.

    Posted by julien38 at 04/01/2009 @ 12:01am

20. Good stuff!

    Posted by snowball666 at 03/31/2009 @ 5:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You probably won't like the power to suspend haebus corpus for American citizens! Lincoln did it against fellow Americans!; Bush did it against non-citizen "enemy combatants" (a realm of existence established by the SCOTUS in 1942 for illegal alien non-citizens partaking in combat) and leftist screamed about that one!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/01/2009 @ 12:45am

21. I don't recall anyone complaining about the de facto super majority requirement when the Republicans had the majority in the Senate.

    Posted by hepstein at 04/01/2009 @ 12:47am

22. RIO, where in the Declaration of Independence is "representative republic" mentioned?

    Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Same place that says ours is a Democracy!

    Democracy -- Government by the people; government in which the supreme power is retained by the people and exercised either directly (Absolute, or pure), or indirectly (representative).

    Republic -- A state in which the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people (the electorate), and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them.

    Articles I and II of the Constitution are very explicit: We choose representatives and they make the rules that we live by until its time to choose again. Thank God we don't have to run down to the townhall, the statehouse, or the nation's capitol to decide every question.

    "There are near-pure democracies in the world. Off the top of my head I think of Bolivia, Peru, Columbia, Chile and California. (Inching its way toward the same sad condition is North Carolina.) Personally, I prefer not to live any place with a pure democracy. I like a little order in my daily life. I want my representative to set the speed limit on the roads and if I don't like the numbers I vote against him/her in the next election.

    Look at California: Its out of control because the representatives (legislators) have discovered that they don't have to do anything. Every question that arises is put on the next ballot, letting law makers off the hook. If a plan goes bad, its the people's fault, and the representatives get re-elected because they didn't do anything wrong."

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/01/2009 @ 12:58am

23. 'US seeks to drop case against former Sen. Stevens By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer 24 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – The Justice Department said Wednesday it would drop corruption charges against former Sen. Ted Stevens because it withheld evidence from the senator's defense team.'

    Maybe the next article should be on the broken executive branch. Justice Dept. says they won't retry Stevens in a new trial.

    Say, didn't BO say that Ted Stevens was the paragon of Senate collegiality and bi-partisanship in Audacity of Hope? The noble statesman from a by-gone era?

    Yeah....right.

    Posted by OneVote at 04/01/2009 @ 08:31am

24. Screwing up during discovery...egads that's inexcusable. What evidence could they possibly have had that was so fragile as to be held back? Damn that's stupid.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/01/2009 @ 09:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Curious about that myself. Still, Justice Department indicates that they have no interest in a new trial, though Stevens requested one on appeal.

    Hopefully, we will get more detail on JD's decision. Prosecution was under BushCo....you would think that any exculpatory evidence would have been gladly given to the defense.

    If this is but a technicality, I think we should be appropriately outraged.

    Posted by OneVote at 04/01/2009 @ 10:51am

25. Funny...most of those Japanese Americans in the camps didn't seem all that to 'combative' to me on the videos I've seen, but they deprived them just the same.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/01/2009 @ 07:51am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yep, that is truth, I would use Demoncrat FDR and his blatant violations of the U.S.A. constitution and his further attempts at to do the same later on as an illustration! Leftist try to use Bush, but it is a LIE because he followed the LAW!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/01/2009 @ 1:45pm

26. But I get out my pen (MightierThanTheSword(tm)) and vote no on each and every stupid bond measure (pay your rich friends more instead of taxing you? ---blow me first, if you're that big a whore!) and each futile attempt to legislate the minority's morality (Prop 8).

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/01/2009 @ 07:51am

    The initiative process is about the only place where California citizens other than the far left actually have a voice.

    Yes, there are a number of bad initiatives by special interests on both ends of the spectrum. We get the teachers unions, the prison guard unions pushing their attempts to get things their way, but overall it is the only way the citizens can still exercise some control in this state.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 3:27pm

27. Sure he did, Rio. And when he takes a vacation to Barcelona and makes it home, we can talk about that.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/01/2009 @ 2:40pm

    Bush is smarter than to go to a country that attempts to impose itself as a higher authority than another nation. All Americans should boycott Spain and Spanish products until they get these radical judges and prosecutors removed.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/01/2009 @ 4:23pm

28. Lincoln-more EVIL than FDR or Bush suspended haebus corpus for AMERICAN citizens! (and Obama is being compared to Lincoln and FDR?)

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/01/2009 @ 6:00pm

29. Did anybody know that Michael Hutchence from INXS used to have a thing going with Kylie Minogue?

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/01/2009 @ 7:56pm

30. This is how some of these senators think:

    A police officer sees a man driving around with a pickup truck full of penguins. He pulls the guy over and says: "You can't drive around with penguins in this town! Take them to the zoo immediately."

    The guy says OK, and drives away.

    The next day, the officer sees the guy still driving around with the truck full of penguins, and they're all wearing sun glasses. He pulls the guy over and demands: "I thought I told you to take these penguins to the zoo yesterday?"

    The guy replies: "I did . . . today I'm taking them to the beach!"

    Posted by eniobob at 04/02/2009 @ 12:36pm

31. The senate and our government are broken, but I disagree about what is broken. What appears to be broken is that the rule of law doesn't appear to apply to those who make the laws.

    We have a two or three class system in the U.S. anymore. The high class society that controls the lawmakers in the house of representatives, senate and the executive branch. Then the next rung up are the federal and state officials carrying out the orders of their superiors (the ultra wealthy).

    Finally, we have the working class folks who would like to pretend they belong to the other two groups but don't have a prayers chance in hell of getting into either group. Equal representation under the law and equal rights under the law don't exist in this country anymore. Otherwise, white collar criminals would be doing life sentences for their crimes if one truly believed in justice. Say a crack head kills somebody or robs a store. That guy will get a very very long sentence. A senator or even someone of Madoff, Libby or anyone playing the white collar crime game do a short stint in a minium security prison beter than most people live, and when they get out, they and their families still reap the benefits of the crimes they committed in their laundered offshore accounts and so on.

    It's not the land of the free and brave, it's the land of the haves and have nots.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/02/2009 @ 2:54pm

32. The origins of the credit are innocent enough. In 2005 Congress passed, and George W. Bush signed, the $244 billion transportation bill. It included a variety of tax credits for alternative fuels such as ethanol and biomass. But it also included a fifty-cent-a-gallon credit for the use of fuel mixtures that combined "alternative fuel" with a "taxable fuel" such as diesel or gasoline.

    Christopher, I read your article about the fuel/green fuel mixtures and have a question. Do all of the oil companies or companies that refine the gas get 51 cents on every gallon back in taxes as well?

    If so, let's see if I have this straight. They add ethanol to gasoline which in turn makes my car run less efficient which in turn costs me more since I don't get as many miles per gallon. So, I have to buy more of their product to go the same distance in my car and the government is giving them an additional 50 cents per gallon on top of this?!!!!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/03/2009 @ 12:17pm

33. 90 Of those stellar Senators voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley 1999 and our hero Mr. Rising tides signed it into law. Geithner along with Irrational Exuberance Greenspan was one of the architects of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Guess why all these babes voted so sheepishly for tarp. Yup, to cover their collective buts. We should allow these great defenders of the secret ballot to vote secretly on all these issues shouldn't we? Next time they steel an election in Florida we should all wear orange tee shirts if we voted for the looser and go down to city hall for a head count.

    Posted by julien38 at 04/03/2009 @ 5:27pm

34. The senate will not change because of human nature. Senators are hyper egotistical, vain beasts (where is the nearest TV camera). Never get between a Senator and the TV camera. The best line was what then New Jersey Senator Corzine said about Senator Schumer: "Trying to share the camera with Schumer is like trying to share a banana with a monkey, take one little nibble and he will throw his own feces at you". Rome had similar problems in its senate so...there is a history. Fundamental changes require constitutional changes and that will never happen - thank God for the non whacko states of the midwest and....Senators.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/04/2009 @ 12:46am

35. Pyewacky

    There's truth in your statement about the overweening vanity of many senators. And yes some have protected the fundamentals of our republic from well meaning, but hurried structural change.

    However the great majority of senators have merely propped the status quo & have been thusly, euphonious messengers for the wealthy & powerful at the expense of the common man.

    Posted by Sorelish at 04/04/2009 @ 11:04am

36. Yes, snow, our House of Lords will continue to spike the dreams of both young & old who envision hallowed halls inhabited by tweedy, aristocratic exemplifiers of the ivory tower life. But the path to that egocentric stronghold requires more ambition & guile than most either have or want. So we vote for our favorite proxy & continue to play the lottery. There's gold in them thar hills.

    The ovation Stevens received in that chamber shows the disdain of those members for the plebeian requisite of material maintenance.

    Posted by Sorelish at 04/04/2009 @ 12:11pm

37. Posted by snowball666 at 04/04/2009 @ 1:07pm

    God, snow, you're a mega-populist! You don't need no stinkin' PACs. Only the ones you'll wear when campaigning in Alaska & they, of course will be fresh as the wind driven snow!

    Posted by Sorelish at 04/04/2009 @ 3:58pm

38. Posted by Sorelish at 04/04/2009 @ 11:04am: That would be an honest politician as defined by Simon Camron - "once he is bought, stays bought." The bar is low.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/04/2009 @ 5:14pm

39. A pox on both our houses. Until we demand for the House and Senate people of good character and integrity like Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb and Corey Booker, our two representative bodies and the Executive branch will continue to be overweighted with thick-skinned, thick-witted opportunists like Blagojevich, Palin, and I'm sorry to say, McCain.

    We're not getting our money's worth. And we're paying through the nose.

    Posted by ottobald at 04/05/2009 @ 12:33am

40. The senate was supposed to be made up of two ambassadors from each state.

    And each state is a republic.

    Posted by thoreau at 04/05/2009 @ 11:53pm

41. What happened in USA this year is verry important for the World. In France, we are near what The change can give for people in America and in The World. So, i ask myself : Why The Senate is always Conservative ?

    Posted by elyagoubi at 04/06/2009 @ 2:36pm

42. I would hold to the premise that to stop the filibuster in the Senate, look no further than the minority leader, Sen. McConnell. During the 110 congress, it is my understanding that McConnell and his threat of filibuster stopped 108 democrat sponsored bills from ever reaching the floor. Why the Democrats don't take him up on this threat is beyond me. One filibuster showing the republicans bent on on obstruction only for the sake of obstructionism would show the american public the real political partisanship manipulations of the Senate. McConnell should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail. That would be a SIGHT!

    Posted by Dickzx at 04/06/2009 @ 2:53pm