Nathaniel Ward » Senate

Wednesday Links: The Filibuster, the Real Climate Change Agenda, and Google Buzz

Nathaniel Ward — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:00:05 +0000

Jonah Goldberg points out the obvious flaw in the left’s critique of the filibuster: “Of course the filibuster is undemocratic. This is not some bombshell revelation. And yet in indictment after indictment of the filibuster — and the Senate generally — you hear people level the ‘undemocratic’ charge as if it should be dispositive. The Senate was never intended to be all that democratic.” Besides, the left’s attack on the filibuster is opportunistic and politically-motivated, just like the GOP’s similar argument in the 2005 debate over judicial nominees. The filibuster may thwart the “will of the people” at times, but the Founders were right to understand that this isn’t always a bad thing.
In an astounding letter in the Financial Times, Manfred Körner argues that green policies aren’t really about climate change at all but rather about achieving the left’s economic agenda. “Leaving the scientific issue aside,” he writes, “climate change advocates have built the necessary broad emotional and moral thrust behind the issue to make economic change acceptable and awaken a sense of urgency.” Still more astoundingly, he audaciously cites Joseph Schumpeter to make the case for such economic policies — never mind that Schumpeter’s concept of “creative destruction” is premised on individuals freely choosing their own paths, not command-and-control bureaucracies.
And last but not least, Google has unleashed Google Buzz, a social media aggregator that plugs into GMail. David All points me to Robert Scoble’s pessimistic take on the new product. I’m less sure it’s doomed to mediocrity. For one thing, it’s built right into Google’s widely-used e-mail program, which is widely and frequently used.

What I’m Reading — December 23rd

Nathaniel Ward — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:44:19 +0000

Richard Epstein: Harry Reid Turns Insurance Into a Public Utility. “The argument seems to be that price controls alone can force out the waste and inefficiency that are posited to be the hallmark of private markets. By this twisted logic, rent control is the perfect path to efficient competitive markets.”
Creating Incentives for Learning. “Mr. Toby’s main proposal, then, is to require good grades and test scores from those seeking federal student loans. This requirement, he believes, would improve incentives for academic performance and mitigate the inevitable trade-off between widening access to college and maintaining educational standards.”
Exactly Why the Founders Divided the Legislative Branch. E.J. Dionne argues against checks and balances: “In a normal democracy, such majorities would work their will, a law would pass, and champagne corks would pop. But everyone must get it through their heads that thanks to the bizarre habits of the Senate, we are no longer a normal democracy.”
Debunking Conspiracy Theories. “Today no conspiracist publication or Web site wants for the outward flourishes of scholarship. The footnotes are compendious, the sources are seemingly authoritative. It is only when you get in amongst them that you discover what the footnotes actually refer to.”

What I’m Reading — August 11th

Nathaniel Ward — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:07:03 +0000

What Would Harding and Coolidge Do? How the Harding-Coolidge administration cut taxes and spending and allowed the economy to recover.
Why Transit Matters. Transit allows density.
Another Silly Attack on the Constitutional Structure. This time, the Senate is vilified as “the chamber designed to thwart popular will”–which is perhaps a good thing.

What I’m Reading — July 6th

Nathaniel Ward — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:50:44 +0000

Do Retraining Programs Work? “Tens of thousands of laid-off workers like Mr. Hutchins have turned to retraining as a lifeline. Yet for all the popularity of these government-financed programs, there are questions about whether they actually work, even as President Obama’s stimulus plan directs $1.4 billion more to retraining and other services for people who have lost their jobs.”
What the Senate Means Today. Judge Posner explores the changed role of the Senate since the Founding and the political ramifications of a filibuster-proof majority.
Is Romney the Early Frontrunner for 2012?

What I’m Reading — May 26th

Nathaniel Ward — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:00:00 +0000

Who Is Sonia Sotomayor?
Chuck DeVore’s Quixotic Attempt to Twitter and Parody-Video His Way Into the U.S. Senate “‘They say the Internet is forever and things I write could be used against me in the future. If Alexander Hamilton and Lincoln lived today, would they be using their technology to get their message across? Yes,’ DeVore declares. ‘What are the Federalist Papers but the technological equivalent in the 1700s of the blogs?’”
In Defense of Distraction. Sam Anderson asks if it’s possible to retain our focus in a distraction-filled modern world–and does it matter? For what it’s worth, this took three sittings to get through.
Not Helping. This Facebook group makes out Republicans or conservatives as sore losers.
The Healthcare-Competitiveness Fallacy

Do We Need More Populism in the Senate?

Nathaniel Ward — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:24:18 +0000

Motivated by the appointment of four Senators in the wake of the 2008 election, progressives want to amend the Constitution to require that all Senators be chosen in popular elections. This idea, put forward by Sen. Russ Feingold, would further undermine the constitutional structure devised by the Founders.

While scoring political points against disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his appointment of Sen. Roland Burris may be tempting, conservatives should be wary of signing on to this amendment. Instead, they should make the case for preserving and strengthening Madison’s federal structure—perhaps with the ultimate goal of repealing the 17th Amendment altogether.

The 17th Amendment, enacted in 1913, dealt the first blow against the Founders’ structure by maintaining that all Senators be chosen in direct popular elections instead of by the state legislators. But it also holds that in case of vacancy, “the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.” The New York Times carries water for Sen. Feingold’s unhelpful proposal by suggesting that allowing state governments to appoint replacement Senators without voter approval amounts to a “loophole” in the amendment.

Feingold further argues that the appointment of any Senator denies citizens their fundamental rights. “I think of it as a right-to-vote issue,” he tells the New York Times. Of course, the right to vote is nowhere abridged in any appointment scheme, since voters choose the state lawmakers who make the appointment. Now it’s true that voters are only indirectly choosing an appointed Senator, but there’s no reason to believe direct elections necessarily make for superior government.

George Will explains the strengths of the Founders’ design and how the direct election of Senators harms it:

The Senate, indirectly elected and with six-year terms, was to be more deliberative than responsive.

Furthermore, grounding the Senate in state legislatures served the structure of federalism. Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened since 1913 — the progressive (in two senses) reduction of the states to administrative extensions of the federal government…

The Framers gave the three political components of the federal government (the House, Senate and presidency) different electors (the people, the state legislatures and the electoral college as originally intended) to reinforce the principle of separation of powers, by which government is checked and balanced.

In The Federalist, Publius makes a similar argument. He maintains that the appointment of Senators by the states promotes federalism by strengthening the power of states against the federal government: “giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government … must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”

Those who favor limited government ought to think twice about Feingold’s proposed amendment, which would further enervate the federal structure and strengthen the national government, thereby hurting the cause of limited government.