I thought that this Op/Ed piece in the Washington Post was worth sharing.
David Litt begins by arguing that unofficially, not just the president, but the Senate itself is on trial during this impeachment case:
The Senate is on trial.
True, individual senators are serving as jurors, rather than defendants, during the impeachment of President Trump. But as an institution, the upper chamber also has something to prove. If ever there were a moment for the Senate to rise to the occasion — to show the American people that, after years of dysfunction, it is still what countless senators have long referred to as “the world’s greatest deliberative body” — that moment is now.
I think he has a point.
Litt is saying that at least so far, the Senate is not passing this test. Where they might, up to this point, have been still regarded as a key element to American democracy, they are compromising their "value as a steady hand guiding our democracy," and that "the impeachment trial is confirming that the Senate has become a place where short-term political concerns beat out careful deliberation, and where partisanship has done away with open debate."
That argument seems spot on.
Litt goes on by discussing the idea and execution of the Senate from it's earliest days to the present. He admits that it is far from a perfect institution. Yet, it had some saving graces, he says:
The Senate was far from perfect. But for the most part, it still functioned as what 19th-century Republican Sen. George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts once called the nation’s “sober second thought.”
Now, however, any serious notion that the Senate is an independent institution from this imperial presidency we now have seems almost laughable, given the facts. Again, back to Litt:
Compare that history to what we’re seeing during the impeachment trial taking place today. With the security of our elections and the future of our democracy at stake, the great debate taking place in the Senate is not over how best to protect our republic. It’s over whether — in the face of unprecedented White House obstruction — Senators should call a tiny number of witnesses or no witnesses at all.
He then adds:
When it comes to reaching a final verdict, meanwhile, the institution that once considered itself subordinate to no one is now happy to put the interests of the White House — and by extension, of a national political party — above its own.
That certainly appears to be true. The Senate - particularly the Republicans who lead the Senate and announced well beforehand that they would not be impartial during this process - have transparently put the interests of their party over that of the country, and of the democracy that we are supposed to have.
The Senate, in other words, has become a thoroughly partisan institution. Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.), who served from 1961 to 1977, famously described his chamber as “100 independent men and women.” Yet at Trump’s impeachment trial, it’s unlikely that votes will be determined according to senators’ individual temperaments, political philosophies or even the states they represent. Instead, the most important factor — by far — is almost certain be the (D) or (R) beside each senator’s name.
This matters, Litt argues, not just because of how unfair and clearly biased in favor of Trump the Senate Republicans have become, but also because of past actions that have undermined any notion of the Senate, and Congress more generally, as being remotely fair or serious about their responsibilities regarding preserving our democratic traditions:
Meanwhile, thanks to rules changes and audacious exploitation of loopholes, the most consequential votes the Senate has been able to take in recent years — approving massive tax cuts for the wealthy and lifetime appointments for judges — have been rushed through with practically no debate at all. The modern Senate may be many things, but the repository of the nation’s wisdom is not one of them.
This matters, because for centuries the Senate’s defenders have justified its unique rules — the filibuster that allows a minority of senators to kill a bill; unanimous consent agreements that give any senator the ability to grind business to a halt; the apportionment of senators by state rather than population — by arguing that these peculiarities are necessary to preserve the institution’s character. If the institution has lost its character, however, those peculiar rules are clearly no longer helpful.
Litt makes a compelling argument, suggesting that America's "democratic institutions are meant (to) ensure that power is derived from the consent of the governed, yet the current design of the Senate ensures the opposite.
Litt concludes this piece by arguing:
In the coming weeks, senators will consider a grave question: What do we do about President Trump’s behavior? Yet if we’re really serious about protecting our democracy, senators — and the Americans they represent — must start to consider another question as well, one that may prove in the long run even more important than the president’s fate:
What do we do about the Senate?
Good question.
The Senate has become a threat to democracy itself By David Litt (author of the forthcoming book 'Democracy in One Book or Less,' to be published by Ecco in June, 2020) Jan. 29, 2020:
The impeachment trial proves one thing: It’s time to change the upper chamber
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/29/senate-has-become-threat-democracy-itself/?fbclid=IwAR0bRN5bijdJya7gWIOsNpnoGFgwv4ex69eNNm62oyw9qqGXk-5OkyK87PU&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment