The last 14 months of haggling, partisanship, gridlock and stalling over the Obama health care reform bill provided the nation with a primer on how the US Senate can waste time and money as it stymies legislation. (See "Unprecedented obstruction in Congress" April 26, 2010 http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/04/senate_obstruction.html). After all that time, the President and his Party finally did get "a bill"...but it was so mauled that many who supported it in Congress could not recognize the final product. The victory for health care touted by the Democrats as "victory" was limited and hollow. As I write this, the Senate is making a repeat performance, this time concerning legislation proposed to reform banks and financial institutions. This takes place as we struggle to pull ourselves out of the Great Recession, a veritable hole which was largely caused by the bank's and the avarice and malfeasance of the great financial houses.
In a recent case of Senatorial haughtiness and abuse of power (February 4, 2010), one Honorable Richard Shelby (R, AL) put a "blanket hold" on all 70 nominations President Obama had sent to the Senate. Shelby--all by himself--held the President and the Nation hostage until the Obama administration decided to move to permit passage of two very costly projects Shelby wants approved in his home state.
Just this last Thursday, (May 13, 2010) with oil still gushing into the Gulf from the twisted and shattered Deepwater Horizon riser pipe, Senator Robert Menendez sought unanimous consent for a bill entitled "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act of 2010". This proposal would raise the liability cap on oil spills from a meager $75 million (which would not cover the expenses for the first few days of the now month-long Gulf Spill) up to a more reasonable, but still less than what is necessary, $10 billion dollars liability. Its passage would have acted as a deterrent and warning to those who would attempt to drill in risky places. And it would have surely passed. But "Big Oil" needed only one Senator to raise an objection and fend off those who want fair compensation for people affected by the underwater gusher in the Gulf and other disasters in the future. Big Oil found their Senator in Lisa Murkowski. Ironically, Senator Murkowski represents the State of Alaska, the site of what was until now considered the nation's most disastrous oil spill, the Exxon Valdez disaster (See http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/05/13/murkowski-blocks-oil-spill-liability-cap-increase/).
Senator Murkowski stated: “I don’t believe that taking the liability cap from $75 million dollars to $10 billion dollars… isn’t where we need to be right now.” Her unreasoned objection, was all that was necessary to hold the bill up from consideration and end its possibility of being brought up on the floor of the Senate.
Does that kind of obstructionism make sense in a modern state?
Certainly Not!
Overhearing our discussion about the above issue, my grandson asked, "What is the Senate good for, Poppy?" I stammered a bit, mumbling something about "checks and balances", and "its a place where they have time to fully debate complex issues", but that did not seem to wipe the quisssical expression from his face.
Later I thought, L\little "TJ" had a good question:"What is the Senate good for?"
The Senate is the upper house of our bicameral system. The concept of "bicameralism" has a long history. The Founding Fathers appear to have had two paradigms in mind when they established the form of our government. One of the historic threads leads all the way back into first century Rome, the other derived from 18th century Britain.
The "Senate" is derived from late-Republican Rome-- which had a political body called the Senate. Perhaps, we can "blame" our Senate on the writings of Marcus Tulius Cicero (106BC-43BC), a Roman Senator , an orator, attorney, and successful politician who lived and wrote prolifically during the latter days of the Roman Republic. His frequent letters, full of accounts of events and gossip in Rome were written to Atticus, a boyhood friend and confidant. Atticus lived lived in Athens, Greece where the letters survived into modern times, perhaps because they were valuable historic documents so interesting to historians and so well-written. Cicero's musings and historical notes became an integral part of a classical English liberal education, and consequently were well-known by our Founding Fathers.
Marcus Tulius Cicero was a "new man" from the provinces who made good as a talented orator and attorney. His point of view, that of a political outsider, who had finally gained entrance to a special club (the Roman Senate). Cicero tended to emphasize the positive side of the Senate. He took the side of the optimates (the conserative party of that time) and touted the advantages of Roman Republicanism. Perhaps unfortunately for us, Cicero's biased views were adopted as whole cloth by the founders, who failed to see the other side of the coin--how the obstructionism of the ancient Roman Senate was a major factor in the fall of the Republic, to the descent of the state into dictatorship, to a disastrous civil war, and finally into corrupt imperialism of the Augustinian age. Thus, our Senate has as one of its historic roots in a failed political system. Not a good beginning.
The other historic thread leads us back to the English House of Lords. The late 18th century Founders believed with most Englishmen of the time that the "their" political system..comprising (1) a monarch, as head of the state, with limits to its power, (2) the House of Lords (the Lords) , an entity which represented the established church, the nobility and large landowners. and (3) finally the House of Commons, a body elected by the people. The founders, (almost) all English men of wealth, position and culture of the time saw this system as ideal. One in which the political tension between the King (or Queen) and "the Lords" prevented either one acquiring too much power. The popularly elected body, the House of Commons, had the least politcal power. It could voice the concerns of the people, but did not have the power to implement their wishes without the consent of the other two bodies.
The British had a long and turbulent history. There were brief periods of ascendancy of the the people's elected body and times when it was in decline. In the 1640s, at the close of the British Civil War, the government defeated the King and his forces and put the King (Charles I) to death. In 1649, the Commonwealth of England was declared. The House of Lords was reduced to a largely powerless body, with Cromwell and his supporters in the Commons dominating the Government. Then in 1649, the House of Lords was abolished by an Act of Parliament, which declared that "The Commons of England find by too long experience that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England.
The other historic thread leads us back to the English House of Lords. The late 18th century Founders believed with most Englishmen of the time that the "their" political system..comprising (1) a monarch, as head of the state, with limits to its power, (2) the House of Lords (the Lords) , an entity which represented the established church, the nobility and large landowners. and (3) finally the House of Commons, a body elected by the people. The founders, (almost) all English men of wealth, position and culture of the time saw this system as ideal. One in which the political tension between the King (or Queen) and "the Lords" prevented either one acquiring too much power. The popularly elected body, the House of Commons, had the least politcal power. It could voice the concerns of the people, but did not have the power to implement their wishes without the consent of the other two bodies.
The British had a long and turbulent history. There were brief periods of ascendancy of the the people's elected body and times when it was in decline. In the 1640s, at the close of the British Civil War, the government defeated the King and his forces and put the King (Charles I) to death. In 1649, the Commonwealth of England was declared. The House of Lords was reduced to a largely powerless body, with Cromwell and his supporters in the Commons dominating the Government. Then in 1649, the House of Lords was abolished by an Act of Parliament, which declared that "The Commons of England find by too long experience that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England.
But in thime it grew back like a recurrent cancer. Finally, the cure came in the early 20th century when the upper house was extirpated after it proved to be so obstructionist that it threatened the economy and survival of the state. As is clear from this history, Great Britain has slowly evolved from a monarchy to a bicameral system and finally, to essentially a unicameral parliamentary government. today it is stable and its government is representative of the people's wishes .
Thus, the two paradigms upon which the US Senate was based were both failures. Both led eventually to a gridlocked government and in one case decline into dictatorship and corruption and in the other to a slow evolution away from bicameralism toward a more modern, equitable and democratic unicameral system.
The parliamentary system of government is now almost a universal in all modern, industrialized western states. All of western Europe and most modern industrial states elsewhere are of this type but the US (nearly alone among modern industrialized states) remains a bicameral republic as does most of south America.
Thus the modern USA struggles along with an antiquated antidemocratic reactionary system--the Senate--that has been repudiated by most modern polities.
So what is it good for? Nothing that I can fathom --except that it grants extrodianry political power to the elite, the wealthy, the powerful and the enfranchised--a group which is well represented elsewhere in our society.
But reforms of the Senate are always being proposed, particularly by those who are either running for a Senate seat or just have just entered the Senate. Somehow at that jucnture they are not corrupted by the perks, hauture and clubbiness.
Thus, the two paradigms upon which the US Senate was based were both failures. Both led eventually to a gridlocked government and in one case decline into dictatorship and corruption and in the other to a slow evolution away from bicameralism toward a more modern, equitable and democratic unicameral system.
The parliamentary system of government is now almost a universal in all modern, industrialized western states. All of western Europe and most modern industrial states elsewhere are of this type but the US (nearly alone among modern industrialized states) remains a bicameral republic as does most of south America.
Thus the modern USA struggles along with an antiquated antidemocratic reactionary system--the Senate--that has been repudiated by most modern polities.
So what is it good for? Nothing that I can fathom --except that it grants extrodianry political power to the elite, the wealthy, the powerful and the enfranchised--a group which is well represented elsewhere in our society.
But reforms of the Senate are always being proposed, particularly by those who are either running for a Senate seat or just have just entered the Senate. Somehow at that jucnture they are not corrupted by the perks, hauture and clubbiness.
See (http://bennet.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=3b89b24a-c81e-4d6d-a4ec-0d3f5b91e728)
Some (see Senator Bennet's proposal above) suggest previously proposed nostrums-- such as a Senate salary freeze. Bennest suggests that perhaps the freeze in incrases to the Senate should last until jobs are actually available to the homeless and unemployed. Another proposes a reduction in perks like those of excessive travel on private jets, or expansive health care, and massive offices and mobs of specialized staff. Others want to tinker with the corrupt practices of the Senate such as elimination of anonymous "holds" (Such as that described above by Senator Murchoski--unbelievable ain't it?), restrictions on how long a "hold" can be in effect, others plead for an end to the filibuster, and of course the notorious the sixty vote supermajority. Others wish to tweak the rules such as eliminating the "revolving door" between government service and lobbyist jobs for former outed Senators, or their staff or their wives or family, while other rules would put controls on the amount of money a Senator could accept, and limits as well as the funds Senators could accept from foreign sources (Can you believe that?). These are all worthy of consideration and one wonders how no one has objected more vociferously before this. But these are only moving the deck chairs around on an ocean liner that is heading into shoal waters. The over-all question remains.
Other than acting as a further constraint on our democracy, a bulwark against the legitimate will of the people, and as a salaried body of advocates for large corporations, wealthy individuals and other oligarchs, what is the Senate good for?
My response is similar to the 17th century House of Commons in Britain which found the the House of Lords "useless and dangerous to the people". The US Senate is indeed "useless and dangerous" to the people of the US.
Support a constitutional amendment that would abolish the US Senate. Put all those (with a few exceptions such as my home-state of Vermont-- and perhaps Wisconsin too) dithering blow-hards and bald-headed, multi-term-serving, oatmeal dribblers and time-wasters --out to pasture. Save the people's money, avoid the corruption of a political body up for sale to the highest bidder, prevent duplication of effort, save time, make government more responsive to the needs of the people, eliminate another layer of administration which simply acts to obstruct the people's will. We too can evolve into a real democracy. The Romans failed to curb their Senate and they fell into civil war, chaos, imperialism and final decline. The British evolved into a modern, effective, responsive, unicameral democratic system...we can too.
Get the picture?
rjk
No comments:
Post a Comment