The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    DF's picture

    The Senate Sucks or Waiting for Obama

    By DF on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 4:09pm | Politics

    Ah, the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.  No, not the courtroom of Judge Judy - the United States Senate.  Once a bastion of the elite and much more a body that represented state legislatures than Da Peehpuhl (as we say here in California), then civilized by the 17th Amendment, it is now the Place Where Good Legislation Goes to Die on the Vine.

    The Senate is more than just a metaphor for the problems we face - it's both medium and message.  The way that the Senate vastly over-represents (and thus over-empowers) small states is more than just a feature-turned-bug.  It precisely describes the political problem that is at the root of all others: the outsized influence of narrow interests.

    That influence has captured a system that is instead supposed to serve the broadest possible interests - the interests of the entire nation.  What we have to face up to is that the idea of characters changing the system is poorly calculated.  Part of the frustration with Obama is his seeming inability to be a transcendental character in our politics.  We allow ourselves to persist in the belief that anyone could be such a figure at our own peril.

    "Throw the bums out" is no longer an answer because there are always more bums.  It's incredibly lucrative to be a "bum" in this system.  The systems wants and needs people who are willing to serve.  Good intentions vanish in Washington like a fart in the wind.

    It's something that I hear regularly in California as well.  Our political system is structurally unsound, yet you will consistently hear the insistence that we just need better people.  How many times will we change the characters in the play before we realize that what is needed is a re-write of the plot, if not the script itself?

    Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the current political moment is that nearly everyone has a reason to be upset about the way the system works and yet there is essentially no serious political movement afoot to really change the structure of the system.  Yes, the Tea Party is one part corporate astro-turf and one part crazy, but it's also one part legitimate anger.  But their solution is nothing new, just a rehash of "change the characters."  They just need to be more whatever their supposed virtuous qualities are and then everything will be better.

    Except that it isn't.  And it won't be until a broad enough coalition of Americans can assemble around the notion of structural reforms to the system.  Part of that should probably be procedural reforms in the U.S. Senate.  Part of that should be the reform of our system of campaign finance and lobbying.  Part of that should probably be looking at the role of the Fed and asking why the Fed Board is doing so little to combat unemployment even though that's part of their charter.  And there are no doubt other reforms of a structural nature that merit examination, if not immediate implementation.

    One thing that observing both national and local politics has taught me is that the myth of transcendent characters looms large.  Here in California, we've had a budget turned in on time less than 10% of the time for the last several decades, but it's incredibly rare to hear any serious, mainstream discussion about the structural reasons for this.  What you will hear like clockwork before every election is that we need to get the right people elected.

    Well, waiting for the "the right people" is about as fruitful as waiting for Godot.  He ain't coming and neither are they.

    EDIT: Or maybe we should just do this.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Yeah, this isn't about the right people.  The problem is that the Senate gets to make its own rules and its made thousands of pages of them, some of them dating back to horse and buggy times and all of them just waiting to be abused by any vocal minority that wants to throw a wrench in the works of anything.

    The whole thing really needs a do-over.

    I'm no Constitutional scholar but it seems to me that the self governance of the House and Senate has gotten way out of control.  Senate rules aren't enshrined in the Constitution.  Just about the only thing the Senate has is the right to make its own rules.  I think we can agree that it has abused that right.

    Ryan Lizza's New Yorker piece about the demise of the climate bill is a great, though long and frustrating, case in point.  Early on in the story Lizza tells us that a a few Democrats in the Senate opposed, a few Republicans supported and that, for the most part, the various special interests on the business side, including the Chamber of Commerce, the oil companies and the electric utilities were all in favor of moving forward.  Wow, that makes you think, I'm not going to have to read another 6 pages about why something that everybody basically agrees on doesn't happen.  Then you do.

    Getting better people into the Senate would do nothing unless those better people scrapped the rules first and replace them with something more straight forward and democratic.  This will never happen.

    Another problem, by the way, is that the Senate elections are staggered.  This serves as a poison pill of sorts that limits the effectiveness of the public to replace their Senators en masse, which would be the only way to break its cultural attachment to archaic and convenient rules, and would be the only way to truly break the seniority system.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 4:24pm

    Seems to me that one way would have been for Obama to propose (as part if what he did) some strong populist bills, have had Reid really hammer for them, and force the Senate Republicans into idiotic maneuvers to halt. Keep doing this, and make it a major public issue. Then... since the Senate largely writes its own rules... push for change.

    If you don't make it a cause, and pit popular forces and the public good against these private interests and institutional maneuvers, and make it over particulars - the media and the wider population are just going to do their usual yawn.

    It's be great if we could elect a Constitutional lawyer as a President, eh? Especially on the backs of a populist movement demanding change.  

    See what I did there?


    by quinn esq on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 5:18pm

    Yeah, I do.  And I think we've pretty well identified where he's fallen short of being a leader for that kind of movement over in A-man's thread.  Even so, there's still a place for such a movement whether or not Obama is going to be the point man.


    by DF on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 6:42pm

    Unlike Destor, I'm okay with the staggered elections of Senators. I think there is a use to making one house of Congress more resistant to rapid change. Some wave elections are big steps in the right direction, and others are results of panic or some other relatively brief political passion; I'm okay with requiring two or three election cycles in a row to prove the electorate's sustained desire for a certain course of action.

    I think what we really need is a Constitutional Amendment that fixes some of the worst rule problems and takes them out of the Senate's hands. Nothing short of an amendment will have legal force to do this. I think the key is either to forbid or to set a three-workday limit on any Senator's ability to delay a vote without actively voting against it. (Also, no Senator can ask to delay a bill that another has already delayed.) This is meant to eradicate two problems:

    1) The default filibuster, which means that you need 60 votes to do anything. Require Senators to vote against cloture, and not for it, so that you need an active 41 votes against ending debate, and make them stand up and take that vote. (And those who are not present in the Chamber may not be counted against cloture. Filibusters are technically requests for further debate; requests never to have to show up and debate are illegitimate.)

    2) Holds on nominations, which allow any individual Senator to block a vote on almost any nominee, indefinitely and anonymously. This is clearly an abuse, especially when nominees are now known well before they even get to committee. At most, a three day delay to check some additional background is reasonable. Otherwise, one Senator shouldn't be allowed to gum up the works.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 5:22pm

    I can see the wisdom of a bicameral legislature, but it has to work regardless of how many houses there are.  As for getting things to work, I like your suggestions for rule changes, though I suspect you might be right that an amendment would be required.  That's troubling to the extent that I have a hard time seeing that happen these days.


    by DF on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 8:29pm

    Great post as usual, DF. A question for you and for the gallery--what should those changes be? Are they are books or articles that you recommend on the topic?


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 6:01pm

    Well, I identified some of my top picks in my post, but there are no doubt others.  One such existing effort is Lawrence Lessig's Change Congress.  Searching for the URL, I see that it is now called Fix Congress First, which plays right into what I was about to say about being unsure of how much traction this organization is getting.  The fact that I missed a name change despite being on their mailing list doesn't seem promising from a PR perspective.

    As for recommended reading, the best thing I could recommend is Bill Domhoff's Who Rules America?  It's a structural look at power in America and it uses that perspective to prescribe an approach for changing the system.  The latest edition has been updated since Obama's election, but you can read much of what has existed in previous editions at his web site.  Some of the major takeaways are that third-parties don't work and that the left has to reclaim the discussion about markets.  It's very pragmatic stuff, but all with an eye for big changes.


    by DF on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 6:53pm

    Sorry, no. The Senate is fine. the Senate rules are fine. The Dems just CHOOSE not to use them. CHOOSE being the operative word. They could use reconciliation much more, but they think it is for some reason impolite towards the GOP to use 'mere majority' rule, or to render mundane the use of the supposedly exceptional reconciliation procedure when the GOP has rendered mundane the use of the supposedly exceptional filibuster tool. Because to them being polite is more important than, you know, passing legislation. (And please don't start talking about the Byrd rule and the parliamentarian.The GOP just fired the parliamentarian when he ruled against the use of reconciliation, and hired someone more sympathetic to their view of the matter.) What are they going to do? Hold up presidential nominees? oh, yeah they are already doing that. And why is the administration so slow on recess appointments given the GOP holdup? Because it is just too rude to bypass that august chamber. The senate rules only help the minority if the majority refuses to use the rules at their disposal.

    Of course the dems aren't really concerned with etiquette or cowardly in any way. These are people who have knifed their way to the top of national politics for Christ's sake. They are just corrupt. Any Senator against the use of the reconciliation is just bought and paid for. It's just one of many ways in which you can pretend to be for a bill while letting it die.

    In short, the Dems just need a better class of Senator. Any Dem who announces that he or she is against the use of reconciliation on any given bill should be described - rightly - as simply OPPOSING that bill. And duly vilified for that stand. That is how you gradually bring the Senate back to a functional state, where the new 'tradition' becomes to actually pass bills again. (Sorry if I seem ornery today, but all this handwringing over procedural crap and the general lack of confidence in one's convictions - sounds like an oxymoron, I know - on the left is getting to me).


    by Obey on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 6:19pm

    Obey, I share your frustration on these points, but my point is that the "better class of Senator" is a myth.  Within the system we have, this is the best behavior we're going to get.  The reason we get this behavior is because the system incentivizes it, faction be damned.  To quote a well-known flick, "What if this is as good as it gets?"  What I'm saying is that, given the system we have, this is what we should expect.  Continuing to be surprised by it and continuing to demand better characters as the solution seems to be the model of behavior that Einstein guy described as insanity.

    And I have to contest the notion that recognizing structural problems is just hand-wringing over procedural crap or that it reflects a lack of conviction.  I have numerous and strong convictions about where we should be headed, but the question is, as A-man is not at all too fond of repeating, "How do we get there?"  If we recognize that the system doesn't work to get us where we're trying to go, then focusing on fixing that stuff is of primary importance, far from being mere hand-wringing.


    by DF on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 7:05pm

    I see what you're saying. But either way - if they are just to use the rules more pragmatically, as I suggest, or change those rules, as you suggest - a better class of Senator is required to do those things. And their incentives are strongly against changing the rules in a direction that diminishes the power of the individual Senator.

    So the easier campaign is to keep, on all important bills, the question of 'who is for or against the use of reconciliation?' front and center. Each time. Keep the heat on, again and again, until it becomes the natural prima facie framing of a Senator's position on a bill - he is for it if he favors reconciliation, (implicitly) against it if he prefers the supermajority cloture vote.

    I haven't thought this fully through right now, but I'm tempted to say I'd flip your principle on its head - it is not that the quality of representation is only as good as the rules that define his role, it is the quality of rules - what the rules in practice are - that is determined by the character of the representatives using them. Reconciliation is sparsely used because Dems see it as illegitimate. And because they see it as such, it becomes de facto illegitimate. (and so on...)

    Beyond that I'll quit bitching about handwringing if you'll stop calling me insane!!

    ;0)

    (just kidding on that last point... )


    by Obey on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 7:49pm

    I also wish that the Democrats were more assertive in the Senate, but I think that in any system you get the behavior that the rules reward.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 7:15pm

    I have to say some of the rules we thing are horrid, too many Dems love because they can hide behind them so effectively.  Consider that Tom Harkins' End the Filibuster bill never made it out of conference, I believe.  (Sorry; too lazy to google.)  The Disclose Act?  Sorry, not enough Dems wanted to even make it the law that the torrent of teevee ads Citizens United have caused should identify the contributors who made it possible. 

    It's kind of like the nod-and-a-wink agreement on Senate Ethics:  We won't seriously investigate you, if you won't investigate us. 

    Obama on the filibuster in 2005 (okay, I googled a little.):

    “The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster — if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate — then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse,” Obama said in the April 2005 speech in Washington.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 6:37pm

    And yet the House keeps passing bills without it.  Clearly Obama was just wrong about that (and "partisanship").

    To be clear about my post, I'm not saying that the Dems are just helpless prisoners of the system.  In fact, I don't think I mentioned any party with the exception of Tea.  Both you and Obey raise similar points - that there are many Dems who are just as beholden to the system as Republicans.  Granted, but that's a major premise of my argument, not a contradiction of it or even further nuance.  That the rot is so prevalent on both sides of the divide stands as support for my assertion that the structure of the system yields these results, regardless of party affiliation.


    by DF on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 6:59pm

    Copy that, DF.  Reform?  I'd say you have to start with public financing of elections, and what a tall order that will be now.  What, it takes how many million for a successful Senate Campaign now (not including CA; your girls are Special...)?  On day 2 a Senator starts fundraising.  Feh!


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 7:20pm

    I agree RE: elections.  I mentioned Lessig's Fix Congress First (formerly Change Congress) upthread.  He wrote an op-ed @ WaPo recently.  I would really like to see something like this succeed, but my gut feeling is that it would take a hell of a lot of people.  Fortunately, that's not impossible.


    by DF on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 7:28pm

    Sorry for not reading well upthread, DF.  When I have a lot to do, I tend to get to the computer in snatches, and read and write far too quickly; ergo: errors in both.  ;o)

    I enjoy your diaries and comments a lot.  Thank you.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 10/06/2010 - 10:24pm

    OK, we're all in agreement: the Senate does suck. But this is one frustrating thread to read, folks. Do we need better senators, do we need to change the Senate rules, do we need a constitutional amendment to restructure or abolish the Senate?

    Well, we can't get better senators because the system incentivizes sucky ones. Because they're so sucky, they keep adopting obstructionist rules. And as for amending the constitution, two-thirds of those senators would have to vote for that, which won't happen until we get better ones. So end of discussion. Nothing will ever change.

    Unless, of course, the American voting public accepts and embraces its assigned role in running the damn country. You get the chance to throw one-third of the bums out every election cycle. DO IT. Except not on the basis of gay marriage, or mosque construction, or trysts with hookers. Do it on the basis of whether they are committed to passing -- rather than obstructing or gutting -- legislation that's in the public interest.

    Maybe that's just silly talk. It would require all those angry tea partiers to examine carefully, with open minds, exactly what is in their interest. Right, that's too hard. I guess you're screwed.

     


    by acanuck on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 3:05am

    Obey has a pretty good take on the key role the media need to play in calling out the obstructionists for what they are, in order to spur voters to act. After a few of of the worst offenders have been defeated, maybe there'd be a chance for Dr. Cleveland's rule changes. Forget about enshrining them in the constitution, though. A bridge too far.


    by acanuck on Thu, 10/07/2010 - 3:12am