Comity and Collegiality
I heard a story on television about two elderly Senators leaving the Senate Chambers, helping each other through doors and up and down stairs. The two were Jesse Helms (R-NC), five terms from 1973 to 2003, and his arch-rival Claiborne Pell (D-RI), six terms from 1961 to 1997. The story was told to illustrate the mood of the Senate in former times. Whether it is fact or fiction, history would have us believe that in spite of the vicious oratory on the Senate floor, the senators had great respect for each other.
I spent too many hours watching the Health Care Reform Act debate on C-SPAN. One senator cited examples of the treachery of Judas Iscariot and the beating of Rodney King to portray the character of fellow senators. Another senator suggested that the nation should pray that the Democrats would not all be present for the early morning vote. Some believed there was a subtle inference to Senator Byrd and the hazards of the blizzard and icy streets.
We look to the Senate for greatness in “acts of statesmanship transcending party and State lines.” The House of Representatives is composed of men and women who are elected by friends and neighbors in several counties to be their voice in Washington. The Senate in contrast gave us the likes of Webster, Calhoun, and Clay. Senators bring to the floor, “leadership in national thought and constitutional interpretation as well as legislation.”
How do we define Senate greatness? We remember some because their names are affixed to identify monumental legislation in the continuing advancement of human rights. Some senators failed in their tenure in office to achieve great legislation, but are remembered for shaping the ideology for future generations. Some senators, like Senator Helms and Thurmond achieved fame as champions of an anachronistic South. William Fulbright and Al Gore, Sr. may be best remembered for opposition to the Vietnam War. We have come to recognize and applaud something that we call courageous negation.
Unique to the Senate is the required 60 votes for cloture, to circumvent the theoretical vestiges of filibuster. The ultimate vote on health care reform came down to mathematics. The Democrats and Independents had sixty votes. The Republicans had 40 votes.
Moderate Republicans were courted by the Left. Centrist Democrats were enticed, rewarded, threatened, and compromised. Pro-life and Pro-choice senators brought abortion, with or without government funding, to the debate. Insurance company profits and a government public option were decried as the evil giants of greed and socialism. We listened to accusations of secrecy, deception, partisanship, and voting under the cover of darkness. These were countered with arguments of negativity, distraction, delaying, and partisanship. Two primary arguments prevailed— The Republican’s insensitivity to persons without health care, and the Democrat’s unbridled expenditures and un-payable debt for our children’s children. Both may be valid accusations and viable arguments.
Looking toward the next Senate election, I think the 34 senators whose terms expire in 2011 may be viewed, not as the great orators of the Senate Chamber, but rather as heroes or villains. In fairness, the voices of this Senate are reflective of the cultural polarity of contemporary politics. Each senator comes with an official label of Democrat, Republican, or Independent. He or she also comes with the subjective label of liberal, conservative, moderate, or centrist.
More than likely the Senate, and the House, will pass a health care reform bill than nobody will like. Liberal Democrats would have preferred a single-payer public option. Conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans may have to face angry voters. Conservative Republicans rallied their forces and were one vote short.
The incivility of the Senate debate, the vitriolic accusations by and against the tea-party folks, the emotional pleas for the rights of patients, doctors, the elderly, hospitals, care-givers, tax-payers and insurers will continue. Images of Socialism and “the party of No” could reconfigure the political balance of the Senate. A decade or two from now as we amend and refine one of our basic human rights we may be amazed at the comity and collegiality of the Senate, and the country, maybe.
Explore posts in the same categories: Politics & ReligionTags: Comity, Health Reform, Senate
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
December 28, 2009 at 12:41 am
Maybe.
Or we could just shake our collective heads about what happened, and how it happened.
December 28, 2009 at 1:33 am
Anyone who has taken an introductory logic class in college (and passed) would not be able to listen to any of the health care “debate.” But alas, they are not the intended audience.
December 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Bill, hope you are enjoying blogging. I think you’re doing grand. Dee and I are enjoying reading your work and look forward to communing over dinner in the New Year.
December 29, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Bill: You have amply described the condition of this political malady: incivility and ideological zeal. But, alas, you have not given your readers any reason to think the malady will abate on its own.
Frankly, I am losing confidence in your status as dyed-in-the-wool curmudgeon. I don’t think of myself as a pessimist, but on the other hand there’s nothing magical about the country’s constitutional arrangement. We’re proud of it, yes, of course, but it doesn’t work without a broad based recognition that we are tied to each other and mortgaged by the accumulated slights and shortcuts we individually take with each other — in our schools, offices, and yes, families.
These shortcomings in human relations are in the political realm simply magnified one-hundred fold. And in the era of the 24hour news & spin cycle, one thousand fold. We are, sadly, all the victims of our vaunted ‘success’ of two-hundred & thirty years.
There is, furthermore, no resort to arms that can ‘fix’it — unlike in 1776 and 1860. We’ve spun out our dream about as far as we can while ignoring the costs of our collective growth, expansion and wealth.
Best wishes, Bill, and thank you for the saving grace of words like comity and collegiality, to which you might have added cordiality — Ken P.