[taylodl]

Devil's advocate: isn't a lifelong politician an expert in politics? Isn't it the case that with so many noobs in Congress nothing is getting done because they simply don't know how to politic to get things done? All they know how to do is run to the nearest TV camera and start slandering everybody they don't like. Then they wonder why they can't broker deals to get what they want.

Besides, very few doctors, engineers, and scientists want to have anything to do with politics. They generally abhor the practice of politics and generally don't see it as a skill they need to develop. Without that skill, they'll be just as ineffective as the Congress we have today.

[mp05]

I think one could make an argument that the US system of governance was designed to encourage "politicking" by populist types in the House. Love him or hate him, LBJ was excellent at this sort of thing and an ideal representative. But I've read a lot of Caro and it seems he feels the US Senate has jumped the shark in this regard. The narrative laments the glory days of high-minded debate and the occasional cane beatings, but it's hard to say if that's Caro's actual view.

But it's fair to argue the Senate wasn't built for politicking, yet that's what it's devolved into. I'm a political layman, but perhaps popular vote of senators is a terrible idea as it discourages people unwilling to play hardball to get involved... these engineers, doctors, scientists, etc. It takes a special kind of thick skin to be in national office and those type of people don't seem to gravitate to science-based fields, but rather law and professional politics.

[taylodl]

I agree on both counts. The House was, by definition, the populist component of the government. That was the only representation that We The People got. The state legislature was supposed to elect the state senators, and the state legislature was to nominate an even smaller group of electorates to choose the president.

But the fact the state legislature elected the state senators reflects your point that the senate was intended to be more "serious."

[mp05]

It's a beautiful system, and it's interesting to think about how things would be different if the 17th Amendment never came about. But this ruling could bring the role of Congress in governance to the forefront again.

[taylodl]

Well, this Congress isn't up to doing its job. All they know how to do is act like Middle Schoolers and run their mouths in front of TV cameras. They have no idea, or experience, with governance.

[larkost]

I don't think it is the inexperience level in congress that is the driving factor. Ted Cruz has been in the Senate since 2013, and he is absolutely one of the problematic members. Former President Trump is similarly anti-compromise and similarly a bomb-thrower rather than a politicker.

The main problem as I see it is that to many people have entered their own little political bubbles (a problem on both the major parties), and that on one side it has become common to lie outrageously (election denial, "Biden Crime Family", etc...) and to baselessly vilify their opponents in unfair and repugnant ways ("groomers", "killing babies after birth", etc...).

There is a real historical parallel to this: the U.S. Civil War. In the run-up to the election of Abraham Lincoln the Southern Democrats absolutely vilified him, saying things like he was going to free the black slaves (not his plans at all at that point) and make slaves of poor white folks. Many of these species were made on the floors of the House and Senate to be picked up in the newspapers in their home districts.

When Lincoln won (largely because the Southern Democrats split their vote), this rhetoric had taken on a life of its own and the populace was so enraged that it would have taken real leadership in the south to prevent war. And so we went to war with ourselves.

And about what really? Certainly slavery was the over-arching issue, but what specifically about it? Lincoln won on a platform of status-quo. There was to be no effort at freeing slaves (there were 4 slave-owning states in the Union, and slavery happened in a number of new territories like California during the war), and the only anti-slavery thing Lincoln committed to was to no expand slavery into the new territories: something that had already been agreed to.

The U.S. Civil War started because a failed political strategy to lie to their own voters got away from the Southern Democrats.

I am truly scared that we are approaching that today. There is no-one with any integrity left in Republican leadership. Their voters have been lied to so much and so long that the idea that the leaders of the Democratic Party both are tying to "groom" children and to literally suck their blood in some ritual to live longer are nearly main-stream within Republican circles. And Republican leadership is alright with that, so long as they think it will get them elected.