Posted by
flagwaver on Monday, September 28, 2009 11:10:42 AM
I started out to write a piece that defended the 17th Amendment as a necessary to giving the people a greater voice in the running of their national affairs. Why, if electing the members of the House of Representatives and the President are good enough for the people, then why not Senate positions? These folks are supposed to represent us just like the rest of them, right? I also have long been perplexed by the animosity that conservatives had for the direct election of Senators, because direct election just seems like a conservative ideal; let the people decide for themselves who gets to represent them, and leave them alone!
What I had not stopped to consider was that while there were problems with legislative elections of senators, with some internal state battles leaving some states unrepresented, or under-represented, there was no political class culture like we have now. It seems that the era of longtime membership in the Senate club, ramapant corruption, and influence peddling only became edemic to the political class after the ratification of the 17th amendment. It was then that demagoguery became part and parcel of Senate elections, it was then that "special interests" became the power brokers in DC, and it was then that Senate members began to simultaneously court their constituency and ignore that same constituency.
The system as it stands now is a broken down, rusted out wreck when compared to what it should have been. Legislative selection of Senators generally brought the best of the best to Washington, and they did their best to marry the needs of the nation to the expectations of their state populations. They were in many ways ambassadors of their states to Washington; they made sure that the needs, wishes, and desires of their home states were represented and taken into account when votes were being cast. It may have made for a rough time in passing presidential agendas, but isn't that supposed to be the role of the Senate? Aren't they supposed to be the place where passions are cooled and logic reigns?
The direct elections of Senators has basically destroyed that paradigm, and has turned the Senate into possibly the most partisan place in DC. Russ Feingold, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, and John Kyl are not exactly interested in representing their states, but in pushing their particular political agendas and ensuring that they are able to hoodwink enough of their voting populace to get re-elected. It is not about making sure that legislation will benefit the communites that sent them the Senate, because if it were would Kay Hagin be all for cap and trade, when she represents a state that is already bleeding the bedrock manufacturing jobs that cap and trade will ultimately destroy? Would a John McCain be a proponent of illegal immigration amnesty if he were honestly representing the people of Arizona who are uder seige by illegal immigrants, and the Mexican drug cartels whose wars have spilled over into their state? However, since they do not have to truly represent the interests of their states because they simply have to convince a 51% majority (in some cases a plurality) to vote for them, they are more inclined to do the bidding of their parties and their egos before considering the people they "represent". That is also why a person like me in North Carolina has a real and abiding interest in the outcome of a Senate race in Pennsylvania; the Senate has gone from a deliberative body made up of people chosen by their state legislatures to a body that can help move the country either left or right by its very makeup. Moreover, the Senate has become the instrument of the President's will more than a reflection of the state that sends them to Washington. I mean, does anyone really think that Virginia is as liberal as Mark Warner, or that New York subscribes to all the crackpot utterances of Chuck Schumer? However, that is what direct election has wrought: if Schumer can carry NYC and its liberal suburbs, he won't have to leave the Senate until he decides to.
So, while I understand why so many states intially were in favor of direct election, and I understand the momentum of getting the amendment passed, I have had to move from my intial idea that the 17th was a good idea. In the warm light of day, it is just what Thomas DiLorenzo said it is, "one of the last nails to be pounded into the coffin of federalism in America."