Motoring, what’s your price for flight?

We all know that Scott Brown (the Senator-Elect, not the Celtic FC mid-fielder) is pretty hot (not that Celtic FC mid-fielder is not also pretty hot, as Scottish footballers go.)  As Senators-Elect go, Scott Brown definitely out does Al Franken.  There are those who say he even surpasses the most famously comely Senator-Elect from Massachusetts, Daniel Webster (Whig-Boston).  Is it this dethronement of previous Senatorial lookers that is at the root of the present kerfuffle in the Democratic party?  Are they more concerned about the chance that Scott Brown may be lured to a better paying position with a Premier League team, or even some club from the Continent?

“Stop playin’ D!” you say.  We all know the problem is that the Democrats are now down to 59 votes in the Senate and it takes 60 votes to pass a bill there, right?  Wrong.  It takes 51 votes to pass a bill there.  It takes 60 votes to take a vote.  That’s weird, isn’t it?  Yes, because under normal rules of parliamentary procedure, it takes 2/3 of a body to pass a motion on the previous question, allowing for a vote on the main motion.  According to those rules, it should take 66 votes, or 2/3 of 100, to end debate and move to a vote in the Senate.  Back in the 70’s, the Senators decided to lower the bar to 3/5 and not actually make a Senator stand there and talk if he or she wanted to keep the debate going.

The reason the 2/3 thing doesn’t matter most of the time is that most people know when they have talked an issue to death.  Sooner or later, you know you have to make a decision.  It used to be rare that a third (plus one) or two fifths (plus one) of the Senators would obstruct the process so as not to allow a motion (ie: a bill, a piece of legislation) to be voted on.  Now it is accepted that the minority party will not allow a motion to be voted on (a trend which began when the Democrats were in the minority.)  It appears that the mere appearance of allowing an issue to be discussed and voted upon — regardless of a Senator’s position in that issue — can mean the difference between defeat or re-election for that Senator.

The result is, of course, legislative gridlock.  The consequence of this being more and more power concentrated in the Executive Branch of our government.  This is not where power is supposed to reside in our system.  The power is supposed to reside in a place not totally disconnected from the people but insulated from the wild variations of populist sentiment: a Senate selected by the legislatures of the states.

Senators used to be selected by state legislators.  The famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates were in the service of candidates for the Illinois legislature, although the audience understood that the party which won the legislature would determine which of these men went to the US Senate.  The point, however, was to give the Senate a bit of insulation to allow it to consider those solutions which would serve the whole of the Country in the long term.  Direct election, as provided for in the 17th Amendment, is detrimental to this goal.

So instead of great debates and grand compromises, we get a tyranny by the minority and a ridiculous inability to proceed with obviously needed reforms.  As much as I am loath to admit it, I think Tony Blankley is on to something when he advocates for a repeal of the 17th Amendment.  State legislators operate on a level which allows them to know and be known by ordinary people.  Like me, I know a couple of State Representatives and a State Senator.  I know no US Congresspeople or Senators.  I’d much rather focus our political attention on these people with whom we can have a real conversation and let them in turn represent that conversation to our Senators.  As it is, we are left driving through the night in finding mister right.  Will it be alright tonight?