In a cloying little exchange of pleasantries before Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema spoke from the podium of Mitch McConnell’s eponymous center at the University of Louisville on Monday, the Senate Republican leader called the Democrat “the most effective first-term senator” he’d ever seen. McConnell was probably being sincere given Sinema’s role, along with Joe Manchin, in saving the filibuster, the chief tool in the GOP’s obstructionist bag of tricks. He could have called her a “one-term senator” since her demise in 2024 seems all but certain after she alienated as many Arizona Democrats as she could, but that wouldn’t have been gracious. Instead, he went on to give her the highest token of his esteem, calling her a “deal-maker.”
For her part, Sinema noted that she and McConnell share a “respect for the Senate as an institution,” a statement she reinforced by calling for the restoration of 60-vote thresholds for executive and judicial-branch confirmations in the upper chamber, which were abolished by serial Democratic and Republican majorities in 2013 and 2017, respectively. Sinema is, you see, an old-school respecter of the Senate, which makes me sick to my stomach.
Anyone who spends time around the Senate (I worked there in the late 1980s and early 1990s and with Senate offices for years before and after that) is aware of the extremely high regard in which senators hold themselves “as an institution.” They don’t publicly bash House members as petty-minded, party-bossed parochial Lilliputians who have to spend all their time running for reelection. But the unstated though very real mutual disdain of the two congressional chambers is deeply rooted in the Senate’s distinctive constitutional role as an anti-democratic redoubt of entrenched privilege.
This is nowhere more apparent than in Sinema’s beloved filibuster, which in its most recent incarnation has made supermajorities a requirement for even routine legislation. But lest we forget, even if the filibuster went away, the Senate’s grant of equal power to all 50 states is profoundly undemocratic. The states themselves are not allowed to get away with such a gross misappropriation of legislative power. In the 1964 decision in Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the Equal Protection Act of the 14th Amendment, state legislatures had to respect the principal of “one person, one vote,” with seats in the upper as well as lower chambers being awarded in districts of equal population. As Chief Justice Earl Warren famously wrote in the Court’s opinion in a 8-1 decision:
“Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system.”
The logic is the same with respect to the model for all those once-oligarchical state upper chambers, the U.S. Senate itself. But the Senate has its own separate, unassailable constitutional basis. The Article I, Section 3 provision of the Constitution providing for equal representation of states in the Senate is expressly exempted from amendment in Article V (“no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate”). So we are stuck with an anti-democratic chamber. But we don’t have to celebrate it.
It’s important to remember the two reasons we have a U.S. Senate. First, it represented a compromise with those in the founding generation who wanted an unelected body like Britain’s House of Lords to counteract “the people’s House,” the lower chamber. But more important, as James Madison made clear in “Federalist 62,” it was essential to the ratification of the Constitution that the country maintain its original character as a compact of states, not as a truly United States:
“It may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each state, is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual states, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty …
“Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the states.”
This understanding of the country as a modified confederation of states with a stronger central government than it originally had more or less perished with the outcome of the Civil War and the ratification of the Civil Rights Amendments (including the 14th Amendment, that great and still-evolving guarantee of individual rights against states rights). But the Senate remains as a relic of the era when McConnell’s hero Henry Clay and a host of other patriarchal slaveholders held the Union temporarily together by engaging in “deal-making” at the expense of human dignity. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913 and providing for the popular election of senators instead of letting state legislatures choose them, took the chamber as far toward democracy as a flawed Constitution would allow.
“Respect for the Senate as an institution” means contempt for democracy as a fundamental value. That is why those with respect for democracy — particularly those who profess to be a member of the Democratic Party — should do everything possible to minimize the Senate’s ability to function according to the Founders’ design instead of boasting about making the chamber even more susceptible to high-handed measures to frustrate the popular will.
It is very simple. I can get health insurance through my employer when I retire (OK I bear the full cost). It includes pharmaceutical insurance. If this idiocy comes into force I can kiss it goodbye and welcome a half assed scheme that will cost more for less coverage.
Basically the HMOs will force anyone covered by this Medidon’tcare idiocy out of their plan and onto George’s.
Very appropriate that your link to “Non Southern Strategy” doesn’t work- because like the link it doesn’t work. Thinking in those terms is a road to nowhere- FAST.
The reason for seniors’ disenchantment is unclear, but the Gallup responses (and simple logic) suggest that seniors think that perscription drug relief should be more generous. Kerry’s predicament is that even the current modest program — conservative price tag $530 billion — will be tough to fund. A popular alternative is to force drug companies to sell their products in the US for the prices charged in Canada (presumably what Kerry means by “fighting the big drug companies.”) But it would be naive to hope that the druggies will not react by cutting expenditures on research and development, especially R&D of drugs that only a small percentage of patients will buy. If we compel the drug companies to charge Wal-Mart prices, we should not expect them to provide Sacks Fith Avenue merchandise. Of course, Congress could follow up with legislation the *encourage* R&D, with tax incentives. In my semi-education opinion, such an approach would (1) cost taxpayers more in the end than simply having the government pay the durg companies the market price for their goods; or (2) be ineffective in fostering R&D at the current robust levels; or (3) both. The old political game — chisel lots of people out of small amounts of money, hoping they don’t notice, and use the proceeds to give a highly publicised free lunch to whoever you are pandering to this month. (Note — I am well aware that the R’s do this as often as the D’s).
On spring break? Does that mean we’ll be seeing you in an upcoming “Emerging Democratic Majority Gone Wild!” video, doing unspeakable things?
iF ANY USE THIS POLL IN PERSUATION OF ONE NOT ALREADY IN THE CHOIRE, DON’T. dON’T SO THAT A DIALOG OF MUTUAL SEARCHING OF AN ISSUE IS SHARED. sHARED SO AS TO JOIN IN COMMON GROUND. fOR IN THE MEDICARE PLAN THE ULTIMATE PRINCIPLES OF THE GOP ARE PLAYED OUT. bUSH IS A MEDIOCRE ARISTOCRATE IN THE PARACITICAL CRONI CAPITALIST aYN RAND VAIN. tHE RELIGIOUS RIGHT USES THE LORDS NAME IN VAIN.