Tradition or Expediency?

Betsy Newmark draws my attention to George Will's latest column, "'Extraordinary' Rhetoric," which deals with the Democrats' pledge to filibuster future judicial nominees only under "extraordinary circumstances." Betsy zeroes in on the central text:

By giving the filibuster sacramental status, Democrats have become, with the zeal characteristic of recent converts, devout communicants in the church of tradition, willing to die in the last ditch in defense of the Senate as the Framers of the Constitution supposedly wanted it. But of course that Senate was done away with in 1913.

The Framers' carefully considered requirement was that each state's senators would be "chosen by the legislature thereof" rather than by direct popular election. Do Democrats, in the purity of their newfound reverence for the Framers, now favor repealing the 17th Amendment?

That's the principle problem with unprincipled stances: the cry "give me tradition or give me death" rings hollow when it emanates from a party that bases much of its operating philosophy on the condemnation of the past. Except, that is, for their own past, which has come to take on the power of divine writ. From Social Security to foreign relations, the left's answer to contemporary problems is to hold the fort, deny any reason for change, and demand that the status quo (or, in the case of foreign diplomacy, status quo ante) stand. The same is true for their insistence that certain Supreme Court decisions, most notably Roe, cannot under any circumstances be re-examined. Or, to take just one more example, that public education, in its current form, has attained a level of achievement sufficient to ward off all attempts at reform.

In this, the left has proved itself to be, in our day and age, the reactionary party. But their new-found respect for, of all things, the filibuster, and their insistence that the Senate's integrity rests upon a mere rule, doesn't pass the smell test, and it opens them up to myriad intellectual inconsistencies in their juridical philosophy. Expediency, not justice, is their goal; passion, not reason, their driving force.

As for the Seventeenth Amendment, the left has made itself the logical party to attempt its repeal. Since such action would return the election of Senators to state legislatures, the key question would be whether Democrats would stand to gain or lose under a return to the Founders' original plans.

Take a look at this map: you'll see that, after the 2004 elections, Republicans control the state houses in 21 states, Democrats in 19; in ten states, the legislatures are evenly split. If legislators voted according to this patter, the GOP would count 42 Senators, Democrats 38, and some compromise would have to be found in the remaining states.

Of course, things wouldn't work out this neatly, as some states, such as Alabama, would be unlikely to send two Democratic Senators to Washington in spite of that party's majority in the state legislature. Other states that lean blue, such as Delaware, have two Democratic Senators now, but there the state house is Republican, the state Senate Democrat. And this document, on the Senate's web site, points out that many states already enjoyed some of the effects, if not the mechanism, of direct election of Senators before the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted. Perhaps Robert Byrd will find a new ally here.

All this is but an academic exercise, since no one is about to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. But when mere expediency trumps justice, nothing emanating from Washington should shock us. Strange bedfellows indeed.