Not so much a crackpot idea

I've been looking into this notion of repealing the 17th Amendment (see previous post). At first, my Googling took me to several states'-rights sites that gave me an uncomfortable impression of the Montana Freedmen's philosophies. What sort of nutcase theory have I advocated, I wondered to myself with much chagrin.

Digging further, however, I stumbled upon this truly profound and wonderful commentary from John Dean. He was the guy who warned Nixon about a "cancer on the presidency," then proceeded to tell Congress as much during the Watergate scandal.

I offer the whole article as reference and supporting material for my previous entry, but there are some salient points that bear repeating.

One of Dean's main thoughts on the effect of repealing the 17th Amendment is that it would have a positive effect on reducing the amount of influence monied special interests have on our elections. "[Special interests] had had great difficultly influencing the system when state legislatures controlled the Senate. (Recall that it had been set up by the Framers precisely to thwart them.) They hoped direct elections would increase their control, since they would let them appeal directly to the electorate, as well as provide their essential political fuel - money." By their eventual success in getting the direct election of Senators approved, they were more able to consolidate their lobbying efforts.

Perhaps more important to my own concerns about the 17th Amendment is that notion that it removes any sort of buffer from the irrational whims of the electorate. These concerns are being borne out presently as we await the installation of a new crop of far-right Senators who will make full use of their perceived "mandate". It is a corruption of the original system set up by the Founders. By allowing the removal of the states' influence in choosing one house of the Legislature, those who ratified the 17th gave tacit carte blanche to whatever fever occupies our country. Currently, that fever is "values" and the "war on terror". As Dean put it, "it was the Seventeenth Amendment (along with the Sixteenth Amendment, which created federal income tax and was also adopted in 1913) that was the driving force behind federal expansion." It is a federal expansion that continues largely unchecked, to the present day, to the point now where some prominent economists, including Al Greenspan himself, are warning about the effects of the truly awe-inspiring deficit numbers.

Then there's these two paragraphs, which sum up a contemporaneous argument better than I could, paragraphs which are as informative as they are compelling to me:

Repeal of the amendment would restore both federalism and bicameralism. It would also have a dramatic and positive effect on campaign spending. Senate races are currently among the most expensive. But if state legislatures were the focus of campaigns, more candidates might get more access with less money - decidedly a good thing.
Returning selection of Senators to state legislatures might be a cause that could attract both modern progressive and conservatives. For conservatives, obviously, it would be a return to the system envisioned by the Framers. For progressives - who now must appreciate that direct elections have only enhanced the ability of special interests to influence the process - returning to the diffusion of power inherent in federalism and bicameralism may seem an attractive alternative, or complement, to campaign finance reform.

As with all things, I always come back to the pragmatism of something, as does Dean in this case. Quoting Professor Todd Zywicki from George Mason University, Dean closes, "Absent a change of heart in the American populace and a better understanding of the beneficial role played by limitations on direct democracy, it is difficult to imagine a movement to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment." But it would be nice if we could actually get closer to the government the Founders intended.