The Senate's Rhythm
A great deliberative body? Or presidential wannabes who can't stop talking?
The nature of the institution has given rise to some larger-than-life characters. Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, minority leader for most of the 1960s, regularly switched positions on issues (the "Grand Old Chameleon," they called him) and was a huge influence on the Democrats' agenda, leading colleagues to label him "the most powerful member." Nine-term West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, a staunch guardian of Senate tradition, regularly takes to the floor to declaim the body's proper operations. (He's also author of a 3,009-page Senate history.)
Partisans. Over time, the Senate has become more rigid and hierarchical (formal party leadership began only in the early 1900s), which has made passing bipartisan bills a bit more difficult. Yes, there are still measures sponsored by strange bedfellows; Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. Jim Bunning recently cosponsored a bill on coal energy. But the Senate has become increasingly accustomed to party-unity votes. In 1970, about 35 percent of all bills in the Senate were decided on such votes, but in 2005, nearly 63 percent were, according to Congressional Quarterly.
And senators have increasingly been willing to use tools like the filibuster. In the 1950s, according to Barbara Sinclair of the University of California-Los Angeles, there was an average of less than one cloture vote each congressional session; so far this decade, that number has been over 50. "We might think senators are simply above the fray, or they're more statesmanlike than their House counterparts," says Steven Smith, Congress watcher at Washington University in St. Louis. "This is baloney. They are simply living under a separate set of rules."
That all complicates the future of the Democrats' agenda. Congressional observers looking for a historical comparison have harked back to the 1994 election, when Republicans swept 54 seats to regain control of the House for the first time in 40 years. In terms of sheer metrics, the analogy holds up pretty well: Democrats took 30 seats in November to recapture the House for the first time in 12 years. But the rest of the story is illustrative of the Democrats' challenges ahead. As the story goes, Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, careered into Washington with a bold 100 days—not hours that time—plan to reform Congress. And they largely succeeded—in the House.
In the Senate, though, several of their plans ultimately stalled despite Republican control. Ultimately, only four of their 11 initiatives were a considerable success; the rest had either significant modifications or failed entirely, according to the National Journal. "The predicament for House Democrats this time around is the same," says Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution. Put another way, even if the Democrats do succeed with their package of initiatives in the Senate and overcome vetoes from President Bush—several have been pledged—it won't be with any great speed. "You can be sure it won't pass in 100 hours," says Don Ritchie, the Senate's own historian. Majority Leader Reid expects lengthy debate on many of the Democrats' priorities—a hike in the minimum wage, for example—similar to the ethics and earmark legislation. Republicans, Reid grumbles, "are not wild about anything I've talked about."
advertisement
