The stark contrast between the Democrats’ success in the House and their losses in the Senate in the mid-terms have me thinking about the political future of the country. I’m not alone in this—I’ve read a lot of interesting and thought-provoking stories, commentaries, articles, etc. on this topic. But there seems to be no consensus on whether anything can be done about the real danger that the Senate will be Republican for the foreseeable future.
First, the problem—the Constitution not only gives each state two and only two Senators, regardless of population, it makes it impossible to change this even by amendment. Article V says:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall calla Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid toall Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
So we can’t take away senators, and we can’t give more senators to one state than to another, not by legislation and not even by amendment. This portion of the Constitution is “unamendable.”
The protection of equal suffrage in the Senate was originally intended to prevent larger states (in terms of population) from being able to run roughshod over smaller states. You will recall from history class that the notion of proportional representation in the Senate was the “Virginia Plan,”since Virginia was then the most populous state. New Jersey countered with the “New Jersey Plan” to award each state one vote in Congress. This was rejected. To gain ratification, however, the Constitutional Convention adopted the “Connecticut Compromise,” which called for two chambers in Congress, one with membership proportional to population, and the other with two members from each state regardless of population. This was the basis for the current form of Congress.
I should note that while the original intent was to protect small states from large ones, the make-up of the Senate became a fundamental guarantor of the power of slave states to resist any limitations on their peculiar (and hideous) institution by the federal government. After the Civil War, it became the bulwark of the former Confederate states against any effort to promote civil rights. More generally, the Senate has been the single greatest obstacle to progressive reforms, especially as it pretty quickly adopted the filibuster (first used in 1837).
The mid-terms highlighted the difficulties progressive politics faces in the foreseeable future. It has been reported that the number of votes cast for Democratic candidates in 2018 exceeded those cast for Republican candidates by 12 million, and yet the Republican majority in the Senate actually increased. More broadly, the 25 smallest states, meaning half of the Senate, contain just 16.08% of the population. And we’ve all seen the prediction that by 2040 70% of the Senate will represent just 30% of the population.
So no progressive legislation is possible. The small state/large state divide, which increasingly represents a rural versus urban divide, means that small states can prevent any law which benefits the cities,workers, civil rights, the environment, etc. Sixteen percent of the population(really less, when you consider that even in these smaller states, 35-45% of the people are progressive) can and will veto anything progressive. This more than anything else is why we can’t have nice things. In effect, only 10% or so of the people can prevent it.
The consequences for governance are terrible, but they are even worse for the judiciary. If there is a Republican President and a Republican Senate, every judge confirmed will be a Federalist Society conservative. When there’s a Democratic President, it looks like there will still be a Republican Senate, and there may well be no judges confirmed at all (see Garland,Merrick). In 20 or 30 years, there may be for all practical purposes no liberal judges on any court in the country, certainly not on the Supreme Court. This means that even if we somehow manage to get an occasional majority in the Senate as well as the House, and a Democratic President at the same time, any progressive executive orders, or progressive legislation we pass, have a goodchance of being found unconstitutional by the overwhelmingly conservative courts.
So, short of violent revolution, what can be done? The mid-terms actually suggest a path forward. Even in small states, there are cities, and these cities are younger, better educated, and more diverse than the rural areas. Dems won governorships and House seats in Iowa, Kansas, and even Oklahoma. As the rural population ages and dies, while the cities grow, it’s very possible that red states become bluer. I live in Texas, where every major urban area voted Democratic. This was still not enough to overcome the incandescent red hue of the rural areas and the older white Christian voters,but it seems to me that change is inevitable. Lubbock and Amarillo, Longview and Palestine, simply can’t keep pace with Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin over the long run, any more than Liberal, Newton, or Great Bend can keep pace with Wichita and Kansas City. Rachel Maddow’s brilliant reporting on voter suppression in Dodge City, Kansas, was depressing but the long term implications are good. I hate that the R’s are trying to suppress the Hispanic vote, but consider the underlying reality; 60% of the potential voters are Hispanic—in Dodge City.
And what about prejudice? If recent events have shown us anything, it’s that economic anxiety is inseparable from racism, sexism,homophobia, etc. I heard a story about McCaskill’s loss in Missouri, in which Josh Hawley’s advertising called for protecting “our way of life.” He gave no specifics of what attacks were being made on what he was pleased to call Missouri’s way of life, but we don’t need any. Hawley’s way of life means a world of straight white fundamentalists, not minorities (at least not visible or influential), not gay marriage, etc.
So the famous economic anxiety felt by the Trump voters is heightened by prejudice. But this doesn’t mean rural America doesn’t feel economic anxiety. And this may be our way in. Large segments of rural America were rock-ribbed Republican after WWI, but when the Depression came along, they voted for FDR and his programs to help them. It’s true that all too many of them will suffer grievous economic pain as long as they are convinced blacks and browns are suffering worse. But I think that if we offer real, serious, progressive programs, we can wean the more rational ones away from this myopic obsession with owning the liberals. For instance, a lot of farmers back Trump even as they suffer from his tariffs—but for how long? If we can show them practical and meaningful solutions, we can win enough of them to break the Trump/Limbaugh/Fox News hold on their thinking.
We can’t change the Constitution, but we can change the conversation. No more pandering to the center, no more Republican light, not on economic issues. A bold and unabashedly progressive agenda will, I’m convinced,move the needle to the left, and combined with the demographic trends,eventually break the conservative hold on the Senate which is choking ourcountry.
