Stop hating on the Senate
This week's filibuster highlighted how the upper chamber can represent minority interests otherwise ignored
Topics: Rand Paul, Filibuster, U.S. Senate, U.S. Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Editor's Picks, Politics News
The Senate has a terrible reputation, overall, with fans of democracy. And in some ways, it deserves it! After all, there’s just really no legitimate justification for the massive malapportionment at the heart of the Senate, with Wyoming and California having the same two senators.
And yet … the Senate still holds a place in the mythology of American democracy that the House of Representatives never has. Reporters and pundits who hate modern filibusters look longingly at the fictional Jimmy Stewart filibuster in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” and are quick with praise whenever serious debates break out on the Senate floor.
The Senate does have some advantages over the modern House, but that it has potential to be a better debating society isn’t one of them, or at least not an important one. So I won’t be celebrating Rand Paul’s day-long speech this week as an example of what filibusters should look like.
Instead, I’ll celebrate it for something a little different: Paul was trying to use the leverage that chamber rules give individual senators and small groups of senators.
That ability for lone politicians to really make a difference is what separates the Senate from the House, especially the modern House after the reforms that established strong party rule by 1975. In the House, individual members are close to irrelevant in most cases. Even those in positions of authority – committee chairs and the leadership – have relatively little ability to deviate from the dictates of almighty party. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; political parties at their best have an enormous capacity for aiding democratic governance by aggregating and organizing interests and preferences in a way that can give voters sensible choices – and, for properly permeable and therefore democratic parties, allow more active citizens a real and meaningful way to become political actors.
And yet … parties also have their limits. They tend to be ideological, which limits the scope of available options; majority parties attempt to rule issues out of bounds in order to retain their current majority.
That’s where the Senate can play an important role. Individual senators can do much more than simply register votes for the party platform. And that means they are free to press issues that the majority party, for whatever reason, ignores. Those might be narrow issues of interest mainly to constituents in one state or a handful of states; they might be national issues that for whatever reason sort badly on party lines and therefore are ignored or even suppressed.
Jonathan Bernstein writes at a Plain Blog About Politics. Follow him at @jbplainblog More Jonathan Bernstein.





Bill De Blasio Won't Be Distracted By Anthony Weiner
State Roadblocks Could Complicate Marriage Momentum
House Democrats Dismiss Existence Of Obama Scandals
Comments
6 Comments