In the US Senate, winds of change
The US Senate tends to be a pretty stodgy place. Historically, lawmakers are elected and then they tend to settle in for a while. Sometimes (yes, Robert Byrd, I’m talking about you) a ridiculously long while.
But the last couple of election cycles, a crazy amount of change has hit the institution, beginning in 2008 with the election of two US Senators, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, to the White House.
As part of their cabinet, they also chose Ken Salazar from Colorado to head the Interior Department and Hillary Clinton from New York to serve as Secretary of State.
Also in 2008, we saw five veteran Republican Senators bumped aside: Ted Stevens from Alaska, Norm Coleman from Minnesota, John Sununu from New Hampshire, Elizabeth Dole from North Carolina, and Gordon Smith from Oregon.
Three new Democrats also picked up open seats in Virginia, New Mexico, and Colorado.
Including the new Senators picked to replace Team Obama, and the passing of Ted Kennedy in 2009, that represents a 13% turnover in the Senate in one year.
That’s a huge shift. But the remarkable thing is that we’re certain to see another huge turnover this year.
Altogether, there are five Democrats and six Republicans slated to retire at the end of 2010. They include some of the titans of the Senate, men like Christopher Dodd, Evan Bayh, Byron Dorgan, Kit Bond and Judd Gregg.
There is also a very real chance that a number of other veterans could be forced out, either by their own parties or by voters in the general elections.
It appears all but certain that GOP leaders in Utah will force Republican Bob Bennett off their ticket in November.
And John McCain, once his party’s national standard-bearer, is fighting for his life in Arizona’s primary.
On the Democratic side, Majority Leader Harry Reid looks deeply vulnerable. So do Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.
All this change reflects a couple of trends: First, there is intense voter dissatisfaction and a deep anger toward both party’s incumbents. There is also a shift in the culture of the Senate itself.
Not so long ago, incumbents Senators like McCain and Bennett would have been untouchable within their own parties. Now they are viewed with something like suspicion, as “Washington insiders.”
When we begin 2011, it’s likely that America will have a new kind of Senate, one with only a handful of legislative veterans, and very few links to the institution’s traditional past.
Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Your thoughts are welcome.
.png)
The list above still means that about 70+ “veterans” of pre-2008 will still be in the Senate, that’s change but scarcely a tsunami…
One of the interesting factors though, is the number of retirees who “reason” for leaving is that the job “just isnt fun anymore.”
Fred
Who can remember when then Congressman Robert Byrd’s major interest seemed to ferreting out DC welfare mothers who had “a man in the house” (50+ years ago)
That’s a pretty loose definition of “titan”!
To follow up on Fred’s point, this is what Rep Obey had to say in his resignation letter a few days ago: All I do know is that there has to be more to life than explaining the ridiculous, accountability destroying rules of the Senate to confused, angry, and frustrated constituents.
Good riddance I say. Part of the problem with our Congress is the tremendous power incumbents have. Once they’re in, it’s incredibly hard to get rid of them. And the ego they must possess to feel they’re entitled to serve multiple DECADES, much less terms, makes me really question their motivations in the first place. Don’t, at some point, you ask yourself if the public is better served by someone else or is it really just selfishness the makes them fight tooth and nail to keep their position? Look at Byrd or McCain for instance. What possesses these two (and there’s plenty more examples) to think they’re so irreplaceable that they shouldn’t step aside or retire?
Does anyone know exactly why the law was changed so that Senators are elected rather than appointed by the State Legislatures? IIRC this came about in the late 1800’s or early 1900’s. As with bi-metalism it’s one of those things I’m vaguely aware of but that I just can’t find the energy to research.
Career politicians are the problem, not the solution. People like Byrd, Kennedy, Stevens, Daschle, D’Amato, Schumer, Boxer…..they jsut make things worse everyday they sit in the seat. Graft, corruption, greed and a form of elitism that only a Founder Like Hamilton would be comfortable with.
Tom Clancey once wrote a book in which the entire Congress is taken out by an air liner crashing into the Capitol Building. While I realize it’s only a story (who would ever fly a big plane into a building after all, that’s nuts!) and while I would never actually wish anything like that to happen to the Capitol Building, my imagination sometimes mulls over the United States with a complete Congress made up of people called up for the task by their States rather than people who seek the office- career politicians. Maybe it would be worse, maybe it would be a disaster of epic proportion. But maybe having relatively uncorrupted people who have actually had to make a payroll or sweat it out till the next paycheck, who actually WORKED for a living at something other than a law office or as an aide to another politician, who actually paid their taxes (!!!), maybe they’d realize they were accountable, responsible and that is was their job to SERVE rather than be served.
Forgot to mention I’ve yet to see much of anything about our own beloved Sen Gillibrands hubby shorting stocks. Where’s the outrage?
Where’s the outrage? Too busy being outraged by politicians saying the gulf oil spill isn’t all that bad. A bit outraged that politicians say it’s ok for terrorists to buy weapons. A tad outraged that the “defenders” of medicare now propose to do away with medicare. And lastly, the outrage about Gillibrand’s hubby shorting stocks is probably in the same place as the outrage about Sen. Johnny Isakson doing the same thing while criticizing stock speculation on the Senate floor.
Yeah, too much to be outraged about I guess. “Outrage Overload”, probably that’ll be a verifiable disease next fall.
The private sector has discovered that employee-bashing doesn’t lead to organizational success. The critical element is, instead, to institute quality systems. I’m doubtful that firing all our employees in Congress will have little effect unless we can get at the organizational structure and make some essential quality fixes. It may, in fact, make matters even worse as a batch of novices are taken over (taken in?) by professional staffs, ex-congressional lobbyists, powerful donors, party bosses. Not as easy, nor as much fun, as ranting and fussing at politicians but we aren’t likely to get good government until we do the harder, more complicated stuff.
I think one possible positive benefit of having veteran politicians in office is that they can continue work on policies that may take years (decades) to work through to completion. On the other hand, by being in there that long, they are much more likely to be out of touch with the real world. I actually think a nice mix of veterans and novices might work well, if we could weed out corruption. (Obviously my idealism showing through.) The novices could come up with fresh, new ideas, while the veterans could help be a stabilizing voice of reason.
Mayflower- In my dream all the political hacks, lobbyists, etc. disappear too.
Jen- Unfortunately “verteran” tends to equal “corrupt”. Sad, isn’t it?
Hey Bret4207, so how’s that hopey, changey thing working for you?
I don’t hope for change, I work for it.
“As with bi-metalism it’s one of those things I’m vaguely aware of but that I just can’t find the energy to research.”
“I don’t hope for change, I work for it.”
Classic.
I work for change….quarters, nickles, dimes….humor? Get it?
Never mind.
Bret,
To answer your question, popular elections of U.S. Senators began when the U.S. Constitution was altered in 1913, via the Seventeenth Amendment. You can look at the change as part of the larger Progressive Era/ Good Government changes that were sweeping the country. It had become popular among states to hold party conventions to formally nominate senate candidates then hold a public vote (referendum on the candidates) w/ the state legislature confirming the “people’s choice.” Thus, it wasn’t that big of a jump for states to agree to the 17th amendment for popular election.
Thanks Jack, I always wondered about that.