The Decline of the Senate

I worked in the U.S. Senate from 1990 to 1997 -- not long ago. But sometimes I feel like I might as well be a hundred years old, talking about some forgotten Golden Age -- "back in my day" -- and muttering about the greatness of Senator Douglas or Dirksen or Mansfield.

This interview from the Manchester Union-Leader of Senator Rick Santorum is one of those things that made me feel my experience in government is hopelessly out of date. Speaking of Senator John Edwards, Santorum said

"The basic perception in the Republican caucus was that this guy is just an empty suit, that he just simply doesn't understand," Santorum continued. "My feeling is that he's a nice guy, he makes a very nice appearance, but I don't think he has the understanding, and the depth of understanding, of how government works and how these kinds of things affects the everyday person. I think the people in New Hampshire will probably figure that one out."

Now, back in my day (six years ago), the idea that a U.S. Senator would give an interview in which he called another elected member of the Senate an "empty suit," and accuse him of not being smart enough to understand how government works -- well, it just wouldn't happen. (But then, this is the same Senator who six months ago compared same-sex relationships to "man-dog," and seemed obsessed with the latter.) Senators are not even permitted to refer to each other by name on the Senate floor, to discourage personal attacks. There's no need for all the vacuous, over-the-top pseudo-bipartisan flattery -- "My dear friend, the Senator from North Carolina," when referring to Jesse Helms, and so forth -- but the Senate depends on a basic level of cordiality and respect to the others who've also been elected by the people of their state. Everyone in that body knows that no party or temporary majority can rule the Senate single-handedly, and the colleague you disagree with fiercely today might be the one you need to form an alliance with tomorrow. Or they should know that.

The Senate can be a great institution. It's not without its flaws, and of course, its very makeup is undemocratic. But the fact that any member can introduce any amendment at almost any time, or speak on any subject as long as he can hold the floor, makes it one of the most open, loose and non-hierarchical legislative bodies in the world. Ideas that the President and majority party don't want to entertain, like raising the minimum wage, can be introduced by a single Senator, who can force a vote. But that openness depends on the respect and decorum, even if it's sometimes phony, that the institution had developed over two centuries. And which has been lost in a few years.

Santorum is the third-ranking member of the Republican leadership of the Senate. Just as he says here that he is representing the views of "the Republican caucus," he speaks for his party. And as long as his party keeps him in its leadership, it bears responsibility for what's been done to the institutions of our democracy.