Economist extract on the Senate

A CENTURY ago, the Senate had many detractors. It was a club for
millionaires with a culture of alcoholism, writes Lewis Gould in "The Most
Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate". Grover
Cleveland's wife is said to have roused him from slumber with the words:
"Wake up! There are robbers in the house." The president replied: "I think
you are mistaken. There are no robbers in the House, but there are lots in
the Senate." Around the same time, a senator from Maine named William P.
Frye lamented that "there are several in our distinguished body who hold
their seats by purchase."

Is today's Senate any better? Those who say no have seen plenty of recent
evidence to buttress their case. Ted Stevens of Alaska was caught trousering
gifts from contractors. David Vitter and Larry Craig were caught with their
trousers down (though Mr Craig maintains that his were lowered for
legitimate reasons). A couple of senators are accused of accepting cut-price
loans from a lender they should have been regulating more vigilantly. And
Frye's lament about the way vacated Senate seats are filled could hardly
sound more contemporary.

senators have the power (not to mention the verbosity) to talk a bill to
death. It takes 60 votes out of 100 to end a filibuster, so 41 senators can
block almost anything. If the least-populous states ganged together,
senators representing 11% of the population could theoretically thwart the
will of the other 89%. This kind of power has often been used for ill.
Southern Democrats filibustered to keep the segregationist Jim Crow laws
alive. Rural senators today ensure that wasteful, trade-distorting,
ally-enraging farm subsidies will never die.

Yet the Senate has virtues as well as vices. As well as slowing the
legislative process, it often makes it more thoughtful. When the House
passes a bill in hotheaded haste, the Senate cools it down. In a country as
vast and diverse as America, there is something to be said for making it
hard for the central government to impose sudden, radical change on
everyone. And the excruciating difficulty of getting anything controversial
through the Senate forces lawmakers to sit down and take account of opposing
views. On December 11th, for example, Senate Republicans blocked a bail-out
for Detroit's carmakers. This thwarted the clearly expressed will of
majorities in both the House and the Senate. But it was the right thing to
do. A bail-out would either delay inevitable restructuring or (worse) put
Congress in charge of it. The bail-out's advocates will try again. But they
will have to come up with a more plausible plan.
Power to the centrists

Next year the Democrats will have large majorities in both arms of Congress,
but not quite enough seats in the Senate to shut down filibusters and make
Republicans irrelevant. The Senate will thus be the second-toughest check on
the new president, after the rapidly emptying Treasury. But Mr Obama's lack
of a crushing Senate majority could actually help him govern better. If the
Democrats had 60 seats, Mr Obama's supporters would expect him to sign a
bunch of narrowly partisan bills. Since they don't, such bills won't reach
his desk. If, for example, his fellow Democrats try to abolish the right to
a secret ballot before a workplace is unionised, Senate Republicans will
stop them.

The biggest and best reforms of the past have usually been bipartisan—think
of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 or welfare reform in 1996. Mr Obama, too,
has a better chance of changing America for the better if he reaches across
the aisle. Take health care. He cannot substantially and permanently expand
coverage (a Democratic priority) unless he also tackles soaring health-care
costs (a Republican one). Or take climate change. It would be politically
suicidal to force higher energy prices on Americans without bipartisan
cover. There are plenty of moderates in the new Senate, from Olympia Snowe
and Susan Collins on the Republican side to Mark Warner and Claire McCaskill
on the Democratic one. Charlie Cook, a political analyst, counts at least 23
centrists, who will in effect hold the balance of power. Mr Obama should
work with them. He may find a useful ally in his old sparring partner, John
McCain.