Monday, October 20, 2008

Point/Counterpoint: De-democratizing the Senate

HT: Mike P @ Repeal the 17th Amendment Discussion Board

The Yale Daily News in the 10 October 2008 issue posed the question, “Should the nearly century-old 17th Amendment, mandating the direct election of senators, be repealed?” in their point/counterpoint portion; check out the responses:


Gabriel Ellsworth

I haven’t the slightest clue who represents me in my state legislature. If state legislators made the important decision of whom to send to the Congress, I would probably care who they are, and perhaps others would too. Increasing this kind of engagement in the local sphere would contribute to revitalizing the sort of traditional community that is arguably unsustainable on the scale of the nation as a whole.

I used to think that an interest in local and state politics was a likely sign of narrow provincialism. But I now see that true localism would not mean the stifling of what is good in the American spirit. It would mean that I would care deeply about the people who live near me. I would think of them as a cohesive group of primary importance rather than as a haphazard set that includes members of various nationwide identity groups. It would mean that when I travel halfway across the country, I would find myself in an environment with a markedly different sub-culture from my own. This rarely happens in an America that has been culturally leveled.

The repealing of the 17th Amendment would make our political communities more meaningful. It would encourage us to interact with the people who are around us all the time. Politics on this level are better suited to enliven the human spirit than are those conducted on the massive scale of the United States, which threaten to disengage this spirit, alienate it, frustrate it, and—worst of all—turn it so inwards that its devotion to real human community seems pointless.


Alan Cole

If you ever go back in time to 1951, you can tell someone that the USSR will be defeated and dismantled, peacefully, before the end of the century.

He might be skeptical. You can tell him that there will be two great leaders involved in the fall of Soviet communism. You can even tell him that these two leaders are already alive in his time; one of them is the priest in the village of Niegowi, Poland, and the other is starring alongside a chimpanzee in the film Bedtime for Bonzo. At this point, you will assuredly be dismissed as a lunatic.

John Paul II and Ronald Reagan may not have had typical beginnings for political figures, but nonetheless, they became beloved leaders in the fall of Soviet communism. One was a spiritual leader in Poland’s Solidarity movement, one was an inspiring and charismatic U.S. president.

They succeeded as political leaders because of, not in spite of, their non-political beginnings. They were adored precisely because they were not career bureaucrats. Some of the greatest, most cherished leaders are uncommon men with common appeal.

The 17th Amendment gives us more leaders of that sort in the Senate. It lets us elect senators by popular vote, not by the vote of a group of bureaucrats in the state legislature. It lets voters inject a new perspective if they perceive government to be lacking. Without it, the Senate would be filled with career public servants, some of them quite competent—but it would be entirely lacking in great leaders.

Comment: I was a bit disappointed with the augments. I thought they would be much more in-depth coming from an Ivy League university; nevertheless, it is interesting that this rather unfamiliar issue was selected for discussion.

But there was a comment posted that hit upon better “pro” argument:

#2 By KiCo (Unregistered User) 11:36pm on October 11, 2008

The 17th Amendment wrecked vertical separation of powers (sharing between individuals, local, state, and national and generally limiting national power) and virtually eliminated the states as a distinct political entity in the national government, reducing the states to little more than special interest groups.

Most importantly, it turned the Senate to another House of Representatives and created a system which totally rewards pork, buyoffs, and increasing the size and power of the federal government at the expense of the states, local governments, and individuals. This system crushes anyone who tries to reform or shrink the national government, because the behavior which gets them re-elected is growing the national [government] and federal largesse.

We must repeal the 17th by sending state delegates to a convention, approving the repeal amendment, then sending it back to the state legislatures for ratification. This is the only way we can restore liberty and limited government to our society.

Great reply!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The argument made by the student Alan Cole strikes at the problem we have in the US with the MTV/television generations, cult of personality. This is no doubt why Obama has done as well as he has, or why Kennedy and Bird keep getting elected.

America Politics by MTV and American Idol!