By Jay Cost
Monday, May 13, 2019
In a provocative Sunday opinion piece for the New York Times, Jamelle Bouie takes aim
at the United States Senate. It is “is highly undemocratic and strikingly
unrepresentative” institution, dominated by a “Republican coalition of rural
whites, exurban whites and anti-tax suburbanites.” This needs to be changed —
because everybody knows it is un-American to oppose higher taxes!
Bouie offers an outside-the-box idea. Rather than change
the Senate via constitutional amendment, progressives should look to increase
the number of Democrats in the Senate by giving representation in the Senate to
non-state units—“Washington, D.C., the Atlantic territories, the Pacific
territories and the Native tribes.”
Normally, I do not write columns responding to other
columns. But Bouie’s piece is typical of the progressive Left’s frustration
with the Senate, as well as of an inability to reckon with its role in our
constitutional regime. For these reasons, it merits a thorough examination.
For starters, full disclosure: I get it. The Senate is not democratic, and in a republic, that is
problematic. All else being equal, I would agree with Bouie. But all else is
not equal. This is in fact a very old debate, whose context demands some
thoughtful appreciation before slashing changes are made. Why do you think the
Constitutional Convention dragged on through the entire summer of 1787? James
Madison, James Wilson, and other federalists from the large states insisted on
a fully majoritarian system. But the small-state representatives, including
John Dickinson and Roger Sherman, said, No
dice — you want our assent to this Constitution, we need guarantees.
Interestingly, Bouie seems to be on the side of Dickenson
and Sherman — or at least sympathetic. He calls the population disparity
between Delaware and Virginia “a large disparity, but not a yawning one.” I do
not understand this difference from the standpoint of the principle Bouie is
defending. Is the implication that a little bit of anti-democratic bias okay,
but past a certain point it is a bad thing? Was the Senate fair in 1787, but
not in 2019? When did it become unfair?
I’ve never figured out why progressives think that shifts
in population disparities are a salient historical point. Assume that the
disparity between Delaware and Virginia in 1787 was as great as the disparity
between California and Wyoming. Wouldn’t
Dickenson have fought even harder for the Senate as it’s currently apportioned?
If anything, he would have probably fought to retain the original structure of
the Continental Congress. Otherwise, Delaware would be swamped in the House of
Representatives!
And I am not at all sure how giving senators to Guam and
Northern Mariana Islands will make the Senate more democratic. Won’t it in fact
make it less democratic? How are Los
Angelinos and New Yorkers going to have their interests and views better
represented in the Senate because the U.S. Virgin Islands is also included? Is
Bouie advocating the idea of virtual representation, akin to what the British
Parliament backed in the face of colonial protests in the 1770s, whereby
progressives in the underrepresented populous states will be “represented” by
the progressive senators added from the non-states? Or is it simply okay for
the Senate to be anti-democratic, just so long as it is not anti-Democratic?
Regardless, enough is enough for Bouie. The Senate has
become a threat to our way of life, and that requires action! Bouie, like many
progressives, pushes in two directions. The first is to make it easier for the
Senate to act by eliminating the filibuster. The second is to make the Senate
more “democratic” by increasing the number of Democrats.
But won’t these aims be contradictory in practice? Bouie
suggests that eliminating the filibuster should be a priority for the next
Democratic Senate — presumably before
his structural reforms (which would be more difficult) would take effect. So
what happens if the GOP gets the Senate back before American Samoa gets representation
in the Senate? Without the filibuster, evil Republicans will be able to run
roughshod over the land like the Visigoths of late antiquity, using net
neutrality and tax reform to slaughter untold millions.
And forgive me if this sounds gauche, but how about
progressives . . . y’know . . . try to
win over rural America? Bouie dismisses this proposal with a wave of the
rhetorical hand. “And while this coalition
— or its Democratic counterpart
of liberal whites and the overwhelming majority of nonwhites —
isn’t set in stone, it could be years, even decades, before we see
meaningful change in the demographic contours of our partisan divides.” So much
for that idea! The way Bouie and many progressives present the divide in this
country, rural America is hopelessly committed to a kind of ideological
revanchism.
Yet even a cursory reading of American history
illustrates that, in many ages, it was rural America that was more progressive.
Who propelled William Jennings Bryan and his firebrand populism in 1896? Rural
America. Who secured Woodrow Wilson a second term in the White House,
vindicating the progressive reforms of his first term? Rural America. Which
faction in the Democratic party backed the more progressive FDR over the more
conservative Al Smith in the 1932 nomination? Rural America. Who pulled Harry
Truman across the finish line in 1948? Rural America.
Why can’t the Left win these people over once again? One
might actually argue that the task is not as hard as it once was. The current
split between rural and urban America really became solidified with the rapid
growth of labor unions in the 1930s and ’40s. But organized labor has since
fallen by the wayside, all but eliminating this longstanding division. Why
can’t the Left yoke urban and rural voters together by, for instance, focusing
on issues like the oversized influence of the big banks (a key point of
unification during the Progressive Era)? I’m not saying this would be an easy
task to accomplish. I’m saying, maybe make an honest effort to do that before packing the Senate.
And if some grand ideological vision cannot yoke the
different regions together, why not employ a good old-fashioned logroll? That
has been a tried and true tactic since the Tariff of 1824. For instance, ever
wonder why the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is housed in
the Department of Agriculture rather than, say, Health and Human Services? It
gets back to a logroll between representatives from rural and urban America,
the former looking for crop subsidies and the latter looking for greater
social-welfare spending.
I have been reading these progressive think pieces like
Bouie’s on the many awful qualities of the Senate for the better part of a
decade. It’s a durable genre for public intellectuals on the left, which makes
me suspect that their underlying problem is with any senate, as opposed to the United States Senate. The purpose of
our Senate is mainly twofold — to guarantee equal representation among the
states, and to slow down the pace and narrow the scope of democratic action.
The Left’s criticisms about our Senate are on the surface about the first
issue. But I think their deeper objection is that the United States Senate as
an institution is conservative.
Splitting legislative power across two branches doubles the amount of work that
needs to be done, and giving senators longer terms increases policy and
political expertise within the upper chamber, which makes sweeping reforms all
the more difficult to implement.
And have you noticed that lately the progressive Left is
intent on sweeping reform? Medicare for All. The Green New Deal. Universal
pre-K. Amnesty for illegal immigrants. Reparations for slavery. Long gone are
the days of moderation and technocratic expertise espoused by the likes of
Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, and Bill Clinton. It is time to go whole hog!
Yet this is the sort of utopian wish list that the Senate was designed to kill.
Perhaps this explains why Bouie’s solution to the anti-democratic nature of the
Senate is actually to make it more progressive.
No comments:
Post a Comment