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.
The McCain campaign is shameless. Consider this idea; it may be over the top, but so is the Republican commerical about sex education:
——————
A few video clips of John McCain in ill health. A newspaper headline about his melanoma.
A clip of Sarah Palin saying something silly. A headline of her election as mayor of Wasillia, population 6000 [or whatever].
Voiceover: John McCain says he has the judgment and experience to be president. But despite his health history, he chooses an inexperienced new governor as his running mate. Why? To try to win over Hillary Clinton supporters.
Country First?
————————
I suggest this because I think the Republican willingness to put inexperienced mediocrities like Dan Quayle, Clarence Thomas, Harriet Miers, Heckuvajob Brownie, et al., into high office is unpatriotic. They select on the basis of tactical advantage and ideological submission rather than merit.
“MILF” and “bimbo” — those are sexist terms when applied toward any woman. When you imply that Palin’s success is based primarily on her looks (“failed beauty queen” “second-rate beauty queen”), that’s sexist. She did legitimately win election to mayor and governor. It’s fair to question her qualifications for the vice presidency; it’s not fair to label her a “bimbo.”
When did Bill Clinton call voters “lazy, short sighted, shiny object watching dullards”? When did Bill Clinton express contempt and hatred toward his opponents? When did Bill Clinton call Pat Robertson a “Jew-hating Nazi he-devil”? You may have thought those things yourself, but Bill Clinton never uttered those words (or anything close to them). Bill Clinton did, however, stick to his core message “It’s the economy, stupid.”
You mistake lack of contempt and vitriol as weakness. You accuse people who don’t share your aggressive, denigrating tone as “lacking a spine.” I read Naomi Foner’s article; she’s arguing that we go after Palin’s positions. Hit her hard with her hypocrisy. Absolutely. But your language is way beyond Foner’s.
“Leave the political commentary to those who are not afraid of a bloody nose.” Tough talk. There’s a big difference between a solid right hook and a sucker punch, head butt or knee to the groin. My problem with your approach isn’t the fight itself; it’s how you fight. This isn’t some ultimate fighting cage match. It’s not a silly playground game of one-upmanship. It’s a fight to get more people on your side. And there are lots of ways to do that.
Stop panicking. You’re like the soldier who can’t hold his fire and gives away his position. Have some confidence in a candidate and a campaign that has done pretty damn well so far. So McCain is getting a good bump in the polls. If you thought that the country was just going to reject McCain out of hand and lovingly embrace Obama, then you completely misunderstand Americans (but of course you do, because you hold them in such contempt).
And by the way, though I do not expect anyone to believe what I or anyone says simply because we say it, I’d like to point out this article..written by a WOMAN…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-foner/were-in-big-trouble_b_124686.html
She does not seem to have a whole lot of trouble hitting Palin where it should hurt either. And she is just one of many women who undoubtedly feel the same way.
And she, unlike me, actually gets paid to say this stuff.
I’m no frothing lunatic from the woods, people. I am someone who, like many many others, is beginning to see how much Obama is in trouble. Very serious trouble….owing a lot to what I have been talking about…not enough attacks, and too much cerebral dancing.
That is the second time you have accused me of sexism..either grow a spine and come after what I say with an actual argument, or leave the political commentary to those who are not afraid of a bloody nose. But I am not about to give the MILF a pass simply because she happens to be a woman..anymore than black candidates should get a pass because they are black, or anyone should get a pass simply because of race or gender.
If wanting to hit Palin hard, because she deserves to be hit hard because of her extremism, her lies, and her positions makes me a sexist, you have a warped definition of the word. There are plenty of able women out there…Palin is not one of them, and if I see her weakness as the fact that she is a failed beauty queen with an empty head, i will say so, just as much as I will come after McCain for being a foul tempered old fool.
And you want a name? Bill Clinton. For all his many many faults, he was not afraid to hit back dirty and often during campaigns, and he is the only Democrat elected to the White House twice in the last 30 years.
I am not sure what polls or studies you are reading my friend, but we are losing this race, and the Democratic Congress that we control has the lowest aggregate approval rating in the history of Congress. The reason? They are all being led be milquetoast diplomats like yourself afraid of getting scratched in a real, honest to God fight with Republicans…the ones who actually know how to attack and..say it with me…WIN.
ThinkingGuy:
Just who do you think is going to be persuaded by your sexism, contempt and hatred? The “John Q. American” you mock? Women (who just LOVE the term “MILF”)? Independents?
Please show me one Democrat who has won an election using your suggested tactics. Democrats have won, and are continuing to win, local, state and Congressional elections because they’re finally begin to understand the “lazy, short sighted, shiny object watching dullards” that most us more reasonably — and correctly — call our neighbors, co-workers and friends. Sorry all those folks aren’t up to your standards. But they’re the ones you have to win over if you want to be elected to national office.
Not sexy enough.
We Democrats are getting skinned alive in this election, despite all of history and all of the numbers a mere six months ago giving us a free ride to take the biggest electoral vistory in a generation. And the reason why? Sexiness.
You got a gone toting MILF and a lying mean spirited POW on the other ticket. You think ads that talk about issues and graft from Wasilla are going to speak to John Q. American, (aka. John Q. Redneck) no.
The voting public, as it proved by the re-election of Bush, are lazy, short sighted, shiny object watching dullards. If we do not hit back with as much venom, we will lose, as we always do.
How about an ad showing Palin as the second rate Beauty Queen, Jew Hating nazi she-devil that she is? This is what we need to do, because everyone else is doing it.
Define her as the evil that she is.
Spot on. And here’s the ad I would propose:
The idea is to mimic the MasterCard “priceless” ads in tone, structure and imagery. [All claims and figures need to be rigorously fact-checked.]
Opens with an establishing shot of Wasilla, Alaska, cut to interior shot of an ice hockey rink with kids playing on the ice. Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: WSJ headline “Palin’s Hockey Rink Leads to Legal Troubles: Misstep leads to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs”
VO: “Cost overruns caused by Mayor Sarah Palin’s mismanagement of a major city project: $1.3 million dollars.”
Still shots of “Washington lobbyists” shaking hands (ideal would be a picture showing Palin shaking hands with one of the lobbyists she hired). Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: Washington Post headline: “Palin’s Small Alaska Town Secured Big Federal Funds” $26.9 Million Dollars for a town of 6,700 people.
VO: “Amount that lobbyists, hired by Mayor Palin, secured in federal earmarks for her town of 6,700: $26.9 million dollars.”
Moving overhead shot of Ketchikan, Alaska airport, zooming in to proposed location of “bridge to nowhere.” Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: headline from Anchorage Daily News: “Palin touts stance on ‘bridge to nowhere,’ doesn’t note flip-flop”
“Amount of taxpayer dollars Gov. Palin kept for the ‘bridge to nowhere’ she initially supported and was never built: $223 million dollars.”
Clip of Gov. Palin from Republican Convention “In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.” Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: universal “no” sign (red circle with diagonal line) stamped over still image of Palin at podium.
VO: “A candidate who says one thing and does another: absolutely unaffordable.”
VO and graphic: “Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Change We Can Trust.”
Can do a companion version for John McCain.