When I teach my history classes, especially the one on modern US history, I am often asked what I would do to fix the country. I‘ve written on this before and I stand by all of my suggestions. Yet, in the wake of yet another confusing and perhaps disastrous election, I come back to what was my second proposal…we must repeal and eliminate the 17th Amendment. That’s the amendment that ruined the United States Senate from its purpose, and in its place created a body much like the old Roman Senate of a rich pseudo-nobility oligarchy who rule for life.
How did we get here?
Well, it goes back to the Populists...those reformers who saw the changing country post-Civil War and attempted to create a solution. In short, what they saw was a series of “evil giants” who were transforming the country, and to defeat these giants, they believed that they needed their own giant—the government. Of course, in a quirk of weird logic, they admitted that the government was corrupt, and perhaps even part of the “evil giants”…but the Populists had a plan. Sadly, they forgot what the Founders had taught and so, the Populists believed that “more Democracy” would be a cleansing agent to the corruption of government. If you want more on the Populists, hit the link above where I covered this in depth last year in early 2016.
While these ideas, first set out in the 1880s were rejected then, they slowly took root over the next 20-30 years to the point that by the 1910s, the country actually began to believe that we were a Democracy. We aren’t, of course…we are a Republic. Thus, as the ideas of the Populists started to come to fruition with the broad based philosophy of Progressivism, a move began to alter what the Founders wanted for the Senate.
The Founders’ vision for the Senate is understood when we realize that when Madison, Hamilton and others crafted our second governing set of rules, what we simply call The Constitution, they were determined to protect the individual states. Remember, the first set of governing rules, the Articles of Confederation, had put the states in the driver’s seat when it came to power. And, while Madison et al were writing in the late 1780s, a strong opposition arose to PROTECT the Articles, and the states. About 50% of the country thought the Articles were fine, and 100% of the country were afraid of a too-powerful central government. To deal with this fear, the Founders made it so the Senators would be chosen by each state’s legislature.
This method did at least two good things. First, it meant the Senators were there as a sort of “ambassador” from the State…speaking for the State, rather than for “their constituents.” And lest that causes you to cringe, remember Madison and the others had already given a nod to “small d” democracy by giving “the people” their own house—the House of Representatives. The House was even given control over the money—the people’s money would be budgeted by the people’s representatives. The Senate, however, would represent the states as individual entities.
Secondly, though, it would also make the Senators “closer” to the people. Think about it—as the state legislatures would decide who was going to be the Senator, that means each state legislator becomes someone a voter can connect with if they are unhappy. Think about the decision to invade Iraq in 2004. Here in Florida, both of our Senators voted to do this in support of the war. We had about 17 million people in the state at that time. Do you really think that either Senator really cares, or is worried about what I might think on this issue? But now imagine that my state representative, which in Florida represents about 150,000. While that is a lot of people…it’s a heck of a lot LESS than 17 million. And, since the state legislator lives in their district, then I can generally find out where this person is. I will probably see them at local events. I can get to them. That person absolutely will know to listen to an irate or concerned constituent.
This notion of “government being close” was a vital aspect of what the Founders believed. Since government could not be trusted, ever, it must be watched closely. They WANTED the various representatives, at city, state and national levels to be, in many ways, afraid of the people…certainly alert to the fact that the citizens were watching closely. The Senate was this way.
The outcome for this should be obvious. Not only were Senators aware they were being closely watched, they would be in the office at the behest of the State. That would mean that if the State House changed hands from one party to another, the Senator would change immediately. And, if the party maintained control, they often still had various members who “had next.” The end result was that “not until the 50th Congress (1887-1889) that the average tenure of Senators reached six years.”
But guess what….by the time we reach the 1950s, something had happened. The average had gone 
above seven years…meaning many more Senators were serving longer and longer consecutive terms. Today, the average is approaching 12 years. Again, it’s the AVERAGE…which means of the 100 Senators, many of them are serving decades. Look at the graph above….look how many Senators are into 20+ years. By the way, its not any better for the House of Representatives, but at least there we can say that this potential matches the Founders overall view (the people’s will represented by their choice of Representative).
As I wrote last year, there are actually many things we need to do to fix the country. Restoring the Senate to its original structure is a critical step. We are now 104 years after this was ratified. We clearly made a mistake. As we allow people, even “good people with good intentions,” to stay in power, the adage of “power corrupts” becomes evident. Worse, average people can’t get in to make changes. As one researcher noted for the House of Representatives, “As House district sizes grow larger, so does the amount of funding required for a non-incumbent candidate to unseat an incumbent Representative. Consequently, it is easy to understand why reelection rates currently are hovering around 90%.” If its true that larger districts in the House demand more money to get elected….what do you think will be true for someone trying to run for the Senate in a state?
The Populists and the Progressives were wrong. We do NOT need “more Democracy.” We need to restore the Republic and it’s structures. Bring the Senate back to the people by making it answerable to the state legislatures.