Immigration, the Senate, and the People
Government was transformed this past week. As Robert Caro correctly notes (despite populist notions to the contrary), the United States Senate was designed to be immune from popular pressure: “to ensure that the Senate could protect the people against themselves, the Framers armored the Senate against the people.” As Edmund Randolph put it, “The object of this second branch (the Senate) is to control the democratic branch (the House).” Clearly, this week, the august body felt (and reacted to) popular pressure on an immigration bill that had been blessed by the leadership of both parties, the White House and the mainstream media.
Entomologists probing the cognition of bugs suddenly exposed to sunlight could study the soundtrack of Trent Lott and his colleagues for clues. Scripted to spring full grown from the dark recesses of Senate process to the Unites States Code, the immigration bill was stopped when people, using new media tools, abruptly flipped over the Senate’s rock. Angry and confused Senators scurried in all directions.
Citizens rewrote the script, recasting protagonists as foils and heroes as villains. NZ Bear quickly put the bill into (somewhat) manageable form for the people to review. Citizens, like Hot Air, cobbled together a few quick, cheap and effective videos (that left the Wall Street Journal asking, “Who are those guys?”). And citizens everywhere got involved in the debate. Rather than play out the revised script, the Senate meekly drew the curtain closed. When it was over, the people had stopped the Senate in its tracks.
This puts us in a moment of considerable disequilibrium. The people floored the Senate. And both sides know that it wasn’t a sucker punch. It was a solid, round-by-round, punch-by-punch, Ali v. Liston-like trashing.
Rather than step into that ring again, the Senate likely will do two things to restore the natural order. First, the Institution of the Senate will work to reclaim its advantage – by silencing its critics through restrictions on new media “for the good of reliable public discourse.” Second, the Senate will avoid the immigration issue like the plague. Both reactions are unacceptable and must be stopped by the people.
Magnanimous in victory, the people must do two things. First, the people should lift the Senate, help it dust itself off, and send it on the right path, by embracing Senators who engage directly with the people. It’s a new thing to them. Efforts should be generously rewarded. On the other hand, the first Senator who makes any motion toward silencing the dialogue should be stepped on immediately.
Second, a productive, result-oriented dialogue on immigration must be fostered. In politics, it is very easy to say “no” to any and all ideas. Every proposal can be not good enough. And every person can avoid responsibility by claiming a high ground of philosophical purity. The real work in government, though, comes in crafting solutions. Immigration needs a solution. And, if a solution is to be found, it is the people that will find it.
Congratulations, folks. Now get to work.
UPDATE: Thoughts by Mark Steyn.
Entomologists probing the cognition of bugs suddenly exposed to sunlight could study the soundtrack of Trent Lott and his colleagues for clues. Scripted to spring full grown from the dark recesses of Senate process to the Unites States Code, the immigration bill was stopped when people, using new media tools, abruptly flipped over the Senate’s rock. Angry and confused Senators scurried in all directions.
Citizens rewrote the script, recasting protagonists as foils and heroes as villains. NZ Bear quickly put the bill into (somewhat) manageable form for the people to review. Citizens, like Hot Air, cobbled together a few quick, cheap and effective videos (that left the Wall Street Journal asking, “Who are those guys?”). And citizens everywhere got involved in the debate. Rather than play out the revised script, the Senate meekly drew the curtain closed. When it was over, the people had stopped the Senate in its tracks.
This puts us in a moment of considerable disequilibrium. The people floored the Senate. And both sides know that it wasn’t a sucker punch. It was a solid, round-by-round, punch-by-punch, Ali v. Liston-like trashing.
Rather than step into that ring again, the Senate likely will do two things to restore the natural order. First, the Institution of the Senate will work to reclaim its advantage – by silencing its critics through restrictions on new media “for the good of reliable public discourse.” Second, the Senate will avoid the immigration issue like the plague. Both reactions are unacceptable and must be stopped by the people.
Magnanimous in victory, the people must do two things. First, the people should lift the Senate, help it dust itself off, and send it on the right path, by embracing Senators who engage directly with the people. It’s a new thing to them. Efforts should be generously rewarded. On the other hand, the first Senator who makes any motion toward silencing the dialogue should be stepped on immediately.
Second, a productive, result-oriented dialogue on immigration must be fostered. In politics, it is very easy to say “no” to any and all ideas. Every proposal can be not good enough. And every person can avoid responsibility by claiming a high ground of philosophical purity. The real work in government, though, comes in crafting solutions. Immigration needs a solution. And, if a solution is to be found, it is the people that will find it.
Congratulations, folks. Now get to work.
UPDATE: Thoughts by Mark Steyn.
posted by steve u. at 7/01/2007
Subscribe
3 Comments:
The 17th Amendment made the Senate directly accountable to the people. The problems the amendment was intended to fix were real indeed. But the solution was overwrought.
So being accountable to the people is nothing new. What is new is that the people can actually see what is going on and how the Senate is conducting business, and technology gives them the capacity to give the 17th Amendment a new set of teeth. And the senators don't like it one bit.
As for getting to work on real solutions, how about starting out by simply enforcing the current laws on the books that are intended to close the border and make employers accountable? Perhaps once the people see that the government actually has a handle on current laws we can start talking about what to do with those already here illegally.
I would also suggest that we need to put significant focus on legal immigration, which was pretty much ignored entirely in the recent debate.
Interesting how something similar is playing out on a local level with some in Utah's Legislature with the voucher issue. One of these gentlemen has created an outstanding venue for hearing the People, even those who aren't constituents, yet the People so far have not been persuasive enough through blog dialogue.
Will the vote in November be heard? If vouchers are given a no vote will we see another attempt this legislative session to get another voucher bill through? Or will we see more bills seeking to punish public education leadership?
Both the illegal immigration bill and voucher law are attempts to meet the needs of individuals while not imposing on the rest of us or on current laws. Neither apparently has been successful. The People do have an obligation to participate and offer alternatives, not just shut down what our representatives propose. We also need from our representatives honest conversation, not PIC propaganda or the threat of retributive legislation.
Steve, that was some amazing commentary! The entomologist reference had me rolling. Nice boxing reference as well. You are exactly right, this was a landmark moment for our democratically elected republic. I hope this is just the beginning. As for the voucher comment, I have yet to meet a voucher opponent who admits that they are willing to abide by the will of the people if vouchers succeed in November. It has been stated publicly and privately that if the people vote for vouchers, there would be an immediate challenge to the courts to determine if vouchers are constitutional. Am I wrong?
Post a Comment
<< Home