|
Editorials: Editoriality Archives - Animations Commentary Pandora's Box! Video What Is? Contact Us Voices of the People Home |
It seems to me there is something inherently wrong with the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, allows for the direct election of senators. I will admit right off the bat that I am a relatively staunch Republican. In fact, I consider myself a dysenteric amoeba Republican, because I would rather vote for a dysenteric amoeba than a Democrat, because they both turn my stomach the same way.
Some may suggest that I am moribund about the potential for the Senate to remain in Democratic hands. I will contend my Republican bias makes me wonder not just about the people potentially in power, but about the sanity of a decision to change the original intention of the founding fathers. Democrats out there will probably jump to say that I am saying this because I'm a Republican and would be ecstatic about any kind of legislation that would favor the unborn, give me tax relief, or to unabashedly wage war on our enemies. While the ability to do those things without ulcers would be nice, I think there is an inculcate desire within Americans to tend toward balance. But I think there is a difference between having sober arguments on the floor of the Senate and just going against what the status quo wants just for the sake of going against the status quo.
But I'm not about issues. I am a republican, that is, an individual who places value on the betterment of the Republic, and not a Democrat, an individual who favors the betterment of individuals. The 17th Amendment undermines those republican values.
Many think that it was the party bosses and the spirit of free elections that drove the drafting of the 17th Amendment. It was actually lethargy from newbie expansion states and Reconstructionist indifference that fired its existence. Several states during the Reconstruction era failed to send senators to Washington, because legislatures from states such as Oregon were large expansion states that couldn't quite get their acts together in time to send a senator to their relatively new role halfway across the globe. Legislatures in Mississippi and Alabama were still holding grudges against the Union and felt that no matter what they did, it wasn't going to change things in their state. They resented the Union and debated and deliberated over who should go to Washington for years at a time. Meanwhile, in Washington, quorums could not be met and progress was slow. The first state to attempt direct election of senators was Oregon, after they tried it one year as an experiment. What resulted was not necessarily the best candidate, but legislators and citizens alike blindly concluded that the process was easier. The state legislature didn't have to hold special sessions. Instead, the senatorial candidates were merely added to that year's election ballot.
Would the lethargy of 100 years or so happen today? Certainly not. Communications and travel has improved exponentially over the last century. While a still relatively small proportion of the population votes, voter awareness is higher than ever. Desire for the betterment of the Union is higher than ever. If the 17th Amendment were repealed today, I would argue that people of all walks of life would get themselves involved in local and state government, and superfluous national political fervor would abate. Especially since 9-11, we are arguably more of a unified Union now more than any other time except WWII.
The Constitutional intention behind the Senate branch was to supply a body of wise, deliberate individuals who would not necessarily follow the blind will of the people, that is true. The intention was to provide fair representation from the smaller states. But why do I have this sickening feeling that Tom Daschle is leading this country, and not the President of the United States? I've seen Senate majority leaders and Presidents bicker before, but this is ridiculous. Direct-election senators are not voting their conscience; they vote on party lines every time because they have "the people" backing them up. Oh, sure. Every single person in your state is behind you one hundred percent.
One argument you currently hear in favor the 17th Amendment was that the people weren't having a say in their candidate, and that the party machines were selecting who got to go. I contend that now, when you look at what's happened in Minnesota and New Jersey, it's not any different. In fact, it's worse. Mondale's been out of the loop for 20 years and is virtually being appointed to his post via the national party dollar-driven machine, whereas 100 years ago, a senator was appointed via the state party machine. At least an electorate of some sort chose the candidate. Why nobody's pointed out that Lautenburg was not chosen by his electorate to run, I can't figure out.
The 17th Amendment also diminished the significance and stature of state legislatures. I know in my generation, as vote-conscious as I am, I couldn't pick out a state representative in a crowd. Not to say that local matters are not significant, but the real meaty interests are apparently on the national level. My, what a big job. But why am I choosing my representative in Congress, choosing a governor, and having to choose a senator as well? At some level, are they not all the same? It seems to me that the significance of choosing a state legislator is nominal compared to the big task of choosing a senator. It shouldn't be that way.
Governors have no power compared to senators, because in many states, ex-governors frequently run for the Senate. With this in mind, I may as well cast my vote for senator and leave the rest of the ballot blank. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, it doesn't matter any more on the local level. There is no direct line from my choices in the state legislature to the federal government. The 17th Amendment severed that.
Who does a senator report to? It is clear in the Constitution the intention of a representative and who he/she reports to, and for every district in the Union, the ratio of population to representatives is about the same. With that in mind, let's think about the senators and whom they represent. There are 50 times more people in Texas than in South Dakota. When Senator Tom Daschle gets up and starts blathering about how Saddam Hussein is not a threat, I can see where he's coming from because I can see where he's coming from! If I lived in South Dakota, I wouldn't worry about Saddam Hussein, either! Saddam may have a lot of chemical weapons stored up, but you can sure as heck bet none of those weapons are going to make it to South Dakota! Daschle's constituency very well might believe the same thing. That's all well and good if they do, but the role of a senator is not to hammer out his own public policy on the floor of the Senate, it's to debate legislation. And a senate majority leader who consistently blocks legislation is a senator of the worst kind.
Senators are not close to the action the way that representatives are. A senator from Texas cannot sit and listen to 9,000 messages on his answering machine in one day the way that a representative can listen to 100 or so. The founding fathers did not intend for senators to be "the ear of the people." That is why the founding fathers opted to have the state legislatures choose a senator. When his constituency is split with Tim Johnson, Daschle represents roughly 200,000 people, or less than 100,000 active voters. Using the same metric, Kay Bailey Huchison represents roughly 5,000,000 people, or a 50 to 1 ratio.
And it is from this thought that senators do not Presidents make. That has been highly evident since the days of Rome. Senators are cogs in a machine. Each has equal voting power, and when the Senate votes, it votes as one. But they are legislators, not politicians. Senator McCain and Senator Daschle are no more legislators than my cousin David the retired salesman. They are perennial Presidential candidates. A state legislature is not going to place a senator because he's electable. They're going to place him because he can push legislation on a national level in deference to his state. Let's face it, voters are suckers (see Jean Carnahan, below). A state legislature won't be so gullible.
We already have one Legislative branch that represents the people! It's called the House! Why do we need another one that represents Delaware, Vermont and Massachusetts, three states that comprise less than one percent of the surface area of the United States, lopsidedly!
I understand that each state is represented equally so that the smaller states won't get ramrodded. That is the whole basis behind the Electoral College. Nothing other than the red-swathed map of "Bush Country" more clearly illustrates this fact. But the present process for choosing senators undermines that principle, and in fact it makes it more lopsided.
The state legislature of the state of Missouri would've never chosen Jean Carnahan for the distinguished and elevated position of a senator for the United States. It would've been like choosing my elementary school librarian, 65-year-old Donna Bagwell. Just because Donna's husband is an executive at Lockheed doesn't mean she knows anything about airplanes or engineering.
The dollar-driven and power-hungry DNC, eyeing the state of Missouri said, "Who can we put in there to make suckers vote for?" The same issue is apparent in Minnesota. Never in a million years would the Minnesota legislature (a wise body elected by the people, a body made up of small businessmen and former teachers and small-town lawyers) have placed someone in such a viable position as 74-year-old loser Walter Mondale.
What's driving interests now you say? Who determines the fate of the state? Is it the people? No, it's the national party machine! The complaint from years ago was that the state party machines were driving the senatorial appointments. How is the national party machine any better? Terry McCauliffe does not speak for me, and he shouldn't speak for the citizens of Minnesota. Terry McCauliffe should not be allowed to choose a Senator from the state of Minnesota. He wasn't elected to a public office! The Minnesota people, by way of the Minnesota legislature should do that. At least there's some traceable connection back to the people. It's not direct, but it least a deliberative body and not a forked-tongued toady would make the decision.
Will the appointed senator follow the will of the people, the will of the Republic, or the will of himself? State legislatures know their appointee. They've watched him in action. Before the 17th Amendment, Jim Jeffords would've never happened. Because of his direct contact with the legislative body of Vermont, they would've known what kind of man he was and what his intentions were. How well he represented Vermont, and not himself, in the Senate would've tipped the Vermont legislature off. A self-absorbed individual has no place in the Senate.
"What do you propose, Mr. Demond? Do you propose to repeal the 17th Amendment?"
Well, that would be nice, but it is, as Democrats would immediately attest, a pipe dream. It would be a public relations nightmare for Republicans and a high and mighty platform for Democrats for years to come. It would essentially change the entire makeup of the Senate. What it would take is a gutsy President to push for it. It would take state legislatures, who would have much to gain, working in tandem, and pushing for the effort, start to finish. Because we are all so embroiled in our democratic values, people from all over would encourage their legislators to say "no way." It would be abdicating our democratic values, many people would say. More significant than philosophical clashings, let's think about what it takes to change the Consititution. It would take two-thirds approval from state legislatures across the country (which might happen), a gutsy President to push for it (he/she would have to explain it very, very clearly) and two-thirds approval from the Legislative branch (not in my lifetime). Why would these self-serving senators give up their good thing?
The other alternative would be to abolish the Senate. But doing so would probably drive all the DC bars out of business.
We already speak our individual voices through the House. It is extremely redundant to attempt to speak my muffled voice through the Senate as well. It would take a great deal of education of the masses for them to understand that on its face, pure democracy is great, but the intentions of the founding fathers is greater.
