Progressive Era Excesses

Americans (and their opportunistic political candidates) like to complain about "politics as usual" quite a bit, particularly with regards to the US Congress. Usually, it can refer to one of two things: obvious cases of political pandering, or the blatant serving of the dreaded "lobbyists" or "special interests."

But really, is there any way to argue that "politics as usual" is not a byproduct of elections? Elections create "politics as usual" because of the hidden quid pro quo arrangements that accompany issues of low salience. Without strong public scrutiny, representatives and Senators feel no qualms voting the way that their biggest donors and supporters prefer. Political scientists would refer to these as "issues of low salience."

Elections also force politicians to pander to voters. "Wiser" voters criticize politicians for failing to look towards solving long-term problems in favor of short-term electoral gains. Their pompous attitude aside, these people are right. Direct democracy often neglects the issues of the future for the issues of the present.

The founders, of course, knew this, and they built in a pretty creative mechanism to work against it. They created a bicameral legislature in order to inhibit the legislative process a bit; brief explosions of public opinion could not effect too great a change on the system. They also made the two branches philosophically different. The House of Representatives would be elected directly for two-year terms, and it would focus on the issues of the people. The Senate would be elected by the state legislature for six-year terms, and, without "politics as usual" to battle, would focus on the broader issues.

The switch to direct elections of senators was made in the name of democracy. Presently, the effect of directly elected senators has been to reduce practical democracy in the US. As of 2000, my Congressional district in New Jersey has approximately 647,000 people. One representative in Congress is responsible for 647,000 people. When the US Constitution was written, the US had roughly 30,000 people per representative. That has increased twenty-one fold. Among democracies, the US now has the second highest ratio of people per elected representative in the world. (Stay with me; I know that a Representative is not in the Senate).

Yet this is the most significant legislator in my life. The most significant legislator in my life should be Caroline Casagrande, my state legislator. She was elected with 24,000 votes or so in 2007.

Casagrande should have the responsibility of electing a person to the United States Senate. If that were the case, state legislators would be given far, far more clout. At this point, to be quite honest, I did not know who my state legislator was, because it never seemed particularly important to know him/her. Having stripped this critical responsibility from the state legislature, the state legislature's federal role has been decapitated. It thus gets no coverage in national media, and scant coverage in local media. The state legislature has been marginalized dramatically in the last century of massive federal government expansion.

What is the result? Senatorial campaigns are huge financial deals, even moreso than House campaigns, because of the significance of a senator's position. (Based on the structure of the two houses, an individual senator has far more power than an individual representative.) Big monied interests (corporations, labor) pour money into the campaigns, and the senators are committed to those interests, at least in part. They are also committed to campaigning for reelection, which prevents them from focusing on broader, national issues, as had been intended by the founders.

The progressive era saw three other amendments passed. One was simply bad (Prohibition). One was mixed (income tax). One was good (women's right to vote). Is it so wrong to think that the progressives might have been wrong on this one?