Decline and Fall
By Tara Ross
In recent years, Senate rancor has become the stuff of legend. Sniping among Senators gets worse and worse, seemingly by the day. Such senatorial squabbling is even more destructive than many may realize. Arguably, it undermines the health of the country to a greater degree than partisan conflict in the other arm of the federal legislature, the House of Representatives.
Understanding why this is so requires an appreciation of the government created by the Constitution, as seen through the eyes of the founding generation.
Dean Clarence Manion of the Notre Dame University College of Law once made an insightful observation about the structure of American government: "The honest and serious students of American history," he noted, "will recall that our Founding Fathers managed to write both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States without using the term 'democracy' even once."
Hold on. Not even once? This fact is too important to gloss over quickly. Let me say it again, a different way.
The word "democracy" cannot be found in America's two most important founding documents--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. To the contrary, the Founders, by and large, were opposed to the concept of a pure democracy. Their intent was to create a government that would blend the best elements of federalism, republicanism, and democracy.
America is a federalist republic--or, arguably, a republican democracy.
What, in short, is the difference between a republic and a democracy? Simple. In pure democracies, 51 percent of the people can always rule the other 49 percent, without any need for compromise or rational behavior. In republics, by contrast, the people are governed by representatives who are elected for their wisdom and their ability to work together in a reasonable and deliberative fashion.
The Founders had at least one important goal as they created the new American government: They wanted to blend the democratic principle of self-government with the republican spirit of deliberation and compromise.
The U.S. Congress is perhaps the most explicit expression of this blend of republicanism and democracy. At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates agreed to create two arms of the federal legislature. The first, the House of Representatives, would be composed of officials elected directly by the people in proportion to their population. The second, the Senate, would be composed of two officials from each State. These Senators would not be elected by the people, but they would be selected by the state legislatures.
In essence, the House represented the democratic principle, in action. The Senate represented the republican principle. The former would ensure that the voice of the people could always be heard, but the latter would ensure that legislation could not be passed without at least some sense of deliberation and compromise.
Unfortunately, the Senate is no longer the rational, deliberative body that it was intended to be.
Ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, which changed the election process for Senators, was among the first events to undermine the well-being of the Senate. Today, Senators are elected directly by the people, rather than by a deliberative process of the state legislatures. As the election process for Senators has become more democratic (and less republican), the Senate itself has become more partisan.
Today, the Senate has become a self-interested, raucous body, unable to work together on even the simplest of tasks. Partisan animosity over presidential nominations, in particular, has caused many liberal Senators to behave in childish and petty ways. The confirmation process for John Bolton, nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is merely one recent example of this conduct. The anticipated resignation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist this summer will likely lead to yet another example of Senate warfare.
Americans do not see Senators as statesmen, as we once did; instead, many modern Senators are viewed as self-centered partisans. Perhaps this is why no sitting Senator has been elected President since John F. Kennedy. How difficult it would be for a member of this self-absorbed body to transform himself successfully into a presidential candidate who is perceived as representing the American people at large.
The Founders argued that a deliberative body is necessary in a republic. Americans deserve calm and reasoned behavior from the republican arm of its Congress. The recent demise of a civil and thoughtful U.S. Senate should not be taken lightly.
I am not so naive as to think that repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment is likely anytime in the near future, even if such a move would restore an important republican component to the Constitution. On the other hand, history teaches us that pure democracies cannot survive--a fact well-understood by the Founders. We should work to preserve--and where necessary to restore--each and every republican aspect in America's republican democracy, just as we already work to protect the democratic principles in our government.
The process can start today by encouraging our Senators to end their partisan bickering over Presidential nominations. The process can continue by educating the American citizenry on the benefits inherent in the republican aspects of their government. In time, perhaps a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment and restoration of a more republican Senate won't seem so far-fetched to a better-informed electorate.
Tara Ross is a regular columnist for TAEmag.com and the author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.
