I usually have terrific respect for those who appear on Zoom conferences on politics. They are academically, and politically, aware and learned. It's why I tune in.
But The New Republic's Zoom conference on liberalism threatened to go off the rails yesterday, even though it featured Jamie Raskin, Representative from Maryland and lead prosecutor of 45's second impeachment trial, on which he did a terrific job. Even Raskin was drawn into the absurd discussion.
To wit: the hand-wringing that liberals are doing about the present make-up, conduct, and process of the U.S. Senate. Respectably enough, they want to embark on wide-ranging improvements, like:
- taking the poor off the streets;
- making better schools for the kids;
- repairing dangerously crumbling infrastructure;
- reducing the overwhelming numbers of guns;
- paving a better path for immigrants; and
- creating a far greener economy.
It's just those pesky Republicans who are in the way. And not by much: the majorities are razor-thin.
There isn't a thing in the above agenda that I'm against. But more than one of the discussants wanted to change the very nature of the Senate to grease the skids, to hurry through legislation they know is good and necessary, now that they have the (slim) numbers until January, 2023, at the very least.
Not only is that not going to happen, and is a foolish part of some flighty wish-list, but dwelling on it wastes time and energy. That kind of radicalism draws on the kind that way too many Republicans in Congress supported on January 6: trying to change the whole system because you don't get your way.
One person quoted the late, long-time Representative from Michigan, Don Dingell, who once said that the Senate should be disbanded. Maybe that was said in a moment of frustration, maybe not. But the Constitution would need to be amended to do so--two-thirds of both houses of Congress required; in other words, two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote to disband itself. Then three-fourths of all state legislatures would have to agree.
Think that's going to happen? Think Senators in either party would de-egotize themselves by declaring themselves irrelevant?
Beyond that: the Senate is there exactly to, in a way, frustrate those who see the brighter, speedier path. And it was put there for that reason.
Good thing the Constitutional Convention didn't adapt Hamilton's plan for the government: The Senate was to have the sole power to declare war, and members would be subjected to impeachment, a process reserved for the executive branch. You saw that last year: What a mess.
Not only that, but if you get rid of the Senate, you'd have to demand that someone else--the House? Oh, that would be fun--to approve of treaties, appoint ambassadors, federal judges, and members of the Cabinet. Imagine the row about Justice Kavanaugh in the House, considering the stink it caused in the Senate. "The Senate [is] coupled with the President in certain executive functions; treaties and appointments," Hamilton wrote in a letter to Washington in 1789, just days after he was sworn in as the first President. "This makes them in a degree as constitutional counsellors and gives them a peculiar [his emphasis] claim to the right of access."
And Madison, at the 1787 Convention itself, had the idea of the Senate figured out. It should not be proportional according to population; it should have fewer members. It should take a more detached, long-range view. "The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch," he said. "Enlarge their number and you communicate to them the vices which they are meant to correct." (Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley notwithstanding)
The disproportionality of the populations represented by Democratic and Republican Senators were discussed at yesterday's conference, too. Raskin himself pointed out that Senate Democrats represent 40 million more people than Republicans. That's more than 10 percent of the population, and yet, of course, the numbers pan out to a 50-50 tie. Wyoming, with less than 600,000 people, has two Senators, just like California, which is closing in on 40 million. That's something like 70 times more clout.
But it also means that much of the disparity is because of California. What Democrats don't complain about is that for the foreseeable future, it has and will have an automatic 56 electoral votes for president. Got a problem with that?
I wonder whether, at any other time, the disproportionality between the major parties has been equivalent. Hard for me to believe otherwise, considering the uneven path and rate of the country's growth (I have no numbers to prove it either way, but it could be done). What Raskin and the Democrats conveniently ignore is that, with a Democratic President, they missed an enormous opportunity to ride some coattails. And they know why that is: race.
Yup. They didn't speak out nearly loud enough when defund the police became a catchphrase upon the murder of George Floyd. (though Biden decried it, but briefly and not loudly, either; 45's advocates lied about his support) Black Lives Matter pushed that phrase aggressively, which repelled potential crossover voters devastated by 45's antics. Democrats, caught in a messaging problem, understood that urban areas, greatly populated by blacks, might hold the key to victory.
They certainly did, especially considering the Georgia upset and the narrow victories in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. They didn't want to discourage large turnouts, so they downplayed the phrase. They got what they wanted--a new patron in the White House: an able successor to the incompetent, nasty, obnoxious, fascist dolt that preceded him.
Democrats had a chance to claim a larger slice of the Congress, though, but didn't. Their margins in the House are three votes, and one vote in the Senate. Changing the whole system is still way too expedient and futile anyhow. Time, and policy, have to be trusted to work their ways to loosen the icejam.
And, of course, the filibuster rule, presently making the approval of 60 Senators prerequisite for ending debate on the floor, is a firewall of a minority's power. Should Senators declaring their wish to filibuster be actually made to stand in the well of the Senate floor, talking as long as they can, actualizing the filibuster instead of merely declaring an intent?
Okay, let's do that. But Mitch McConnell is the master of organizing, especially in dissent, and he would produce a tag team of objectors on any and all bills that might go on for weeks, yielding the floor only to each other. That would have a devastating effect on consideration of other things that the Senate might actually agree to.
That consists of delay, which is sometimes a very effective weapon. McConnell, if you remember, delayed the appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court for some ten months, and got his way with the election of the above mentioned terrible president, who nonetheless did fulfill McConnell's goal of a favorably imbalanced Supreme Court and otherwise-stacked federal judiciary. Mitch can play the long game as well as anyone, and the federal courts, with lifetime appointments, are the place to do it.
The idea of the Senate's strictures is to promote compromise. That so little of that's taking place is a creation of the horribly contentious times in which we now live. But the Constitution is too stubborn to be easily changed. We have what we have. And as of right now, people are going to resist rather than merely disagree.
So the Democrats would be wise to:
- Stop whining.
- Get to work.
- Come back to the conclusion that it's a big country.
- Do what they can, pass what they can, and improve what they can (with reconciliation legislation still possible in a couple of instances); and
- Get a better catchphrase to work with than Defund the Police, which, although understandable in some areas, won't work in most, won't stop racism and doesn't really capture the problem.
Checks and balances are horribly frustrating at times, and this is one of them. But politics is the art of the possible, and the people are watching. Democrats can still give them a government that cares, that works, that provides, that gives them what they need in a tough spot. They can put Republicans, who can now only sit and propagandize, in an unwanted hole if they accomplish that.
The time to complain about Republican intransigence isn't now, it's in a year from now, when Congressional spots will reopen. But only after Democrats get and have a list of worthy accomplishments. The clock ticks.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment