Republicans, and even some Democrats, like to say that America is a ‘center-right’ country, and I think they’re probably correct about that. But it’s not really the political beliefs of our citizenry that makes this country ‘center-right.’ Most polling done of Americans’ political beliefs shows them to be quite a bit to the left of where Congress typically lies. For example, the House of Representatives (aka, the People’s House) has an anti-choice majority but no poll shows that the majority of Americans are anti-choice. I think the explanation for this strange result is a combination of uneven distribution (there are lots of districts that are very, very pro-choice and a lot more that are modestly anti-choice) and disproportionate levels of passion (anti-choicers are much more committed to their cause). In any case, the biggest reason our government is far to the right of our people is the U.S. Senate.
This is easier to explain. When California has the same number of senators as Oklahoma, you know something is fucked up right away. Oklahoma has way too much say about what goes on in the Senate, and California has way too little. Far more small states lean Republican than Democratic, and that sways the politics of the country far to the right of where it really belongs.
So, the whole one-person, one-vote thing is badly skewed. Diane Feinstein won reelection in 2006 by winning over five million votes, while James Inhofe won reelection in 2008 with just over seven hundred and fifty thousand votes. Shouldn’t Diane Feinstein’s vote count for five or six times as much as James Inhofe’s?
The Senate is clearly an undemocratic institution. It was born of a compromise that was struck to ensure that we actually had united states backing our new federal government. If not for the two votes per state rule, Virginia and Massachusetts would have dominated our government so much that little Delaware and Rhode Island would never have agreed to join it. Okay, so I understand why this was done. But it skews things. And it’s made immeasurably worse by the filibuster rule, which actually makes it possible for 41% of an undemocratic Senate to block the will of the other fifty-nine percent.
Now, I recognize that this super-empowerment of the minority in our country leads to amazing stability, and that that stability is one of the things that has contributed to making America one of the most attractive places in the world to invest. We’re unique, even exceptional, in that we do not turn on a dime and change our financial or tax policies willy-nilly. If a simple majority could muscle through huge changes, our country would lose this attractive quality immediately. Forecasting the future would be a crapshoot and something essential about our country’s character would be lost. I am not arguing, necessarily, that we want to scrap the filibuster entirely.
But there is a difference between stability and gridlock. For one thing, I do not think that the filibuster is appropriate for presidential appointments. The executive office should be able to fill out its staff in a timely manner. I know this would mean that a filibuster would not be available to beat back controversial judicial appointments, but it’s a price we should pay to make sure that we have an effective government.
I also don’t think that the filibuster should be the final word on legislation. If a senator wants to exert his or her right to have more time to consider a piece of legislation, that’s fine. But a minority should not be able to delay legislation indefinitely. If something is so pressing as to justify using up huge chunks of the legislative calendar to see that it gets a vote, then it should eventually get that vote. Cloture votes should have a sliding scale. The first effort to cut off debate might require 67 votes, the next 60, the next 55, and the last fifty-one. A party determined to have a vote at the 51-vote threshold might have to devote two months of legislative time, but if they’re willing to do that, the issue must be of grave importance, and we can’t allow gridlock to paralyze the government’s ability to tackle pressing issues.
I don’t think most Americans would approve of the undemocratic character of the U.S. Senate if they fully understood it. There might be a strange kind of genius behind it that contributes to our success as a nation, but not if it prevents us from taking action. Not if it thwarts the will of the people to a crippling degree. Not if we can’t have a government that can keep its promises.