By Mitchel Olszak
The United States Senate has been described as the world’s greatest deliberative body.
The term is based on the notion that senators can — in a collegial atmosphere — sit down and discuss differences in a way that produces compromises on contentious issues.
This contrasts with the House, where the party in power tends to simply ram things through. In the Senate, various sensitivities must be considered.
One reason is that senators enjoy six-year terms, unlike lawmakers in the House, whose two-year terms mean they are constantly running for re-election. This — combined with the fact senators typically serve a larger constituency and must balance a greater variety of interests — means that they are more agreeable to negotiations.
Then there is the filibuster, which gives a minority in the Senate real power. It takes just 41 senators to block legislation. So for any measure to pass, some degree of bipartisanship is all but essential.
The Senate, however, is not immune to America’s growing ideological rift, where people on both sides of the chasm are more inclined to scream at each other than to talk things out.
And, increasingly, this movement toward the extremes produces demands of complete loyalty from politicians on matters deemed important. There is no room for nuance, judgment or expertise in a narrow ideology.
This is why virtually all Democrats and all Republicans in the Senate have lined up on opposite sides of health care reform.
On an issue this big and this important you would think the matters at hand would transcend party politics. And in the past, you would be right. But not anymore.
Thus, with the Senate effectively divided 60-40 in favor of Democrats, the two parties are seeking just one crossover to give them a victory.
It is amid this maelstrom of ideological idiocy that I turn my thoughts to Sen. Lindsey Graham.
This South Carolina Republican has a solid conservative record. He is considered a leading and respected Republican voice in the Senate.
But he has this annoying (and least in some circles) habit of believing it is useful and desirable to talk to his Democratic colleagues on certain issues. He seems to cling to the notion that there are still areas of mutual interest where liberals and conservatives can achieve common ground.
And for that, he is in trouble back home.
The GOP in South Carolina’s Charleston County — the largest in the state — last week voted to censure Graham over his less-than-strident embrace of supposed conservative principles.
Although several issues were cited, it seems that the latest — Graham’s willingness to discuss cap-and-trade legislation as a way to combat global warming — was the proverbial last straw.
The main conservative gripes with cap and trade are that it expands government power while hurting economic growth. The Charleston County’s GOP censure resolution accused Graham of acting contrary to “the ideals of freedom, rule of law and fiscal conservatism.”
Graham counters that global warming is a real threat, one he probably presumes South Carolina won’t be immune to. He also suggests that a side benefit of this legislative effort will be the development of alternative fuels that will spur innovation and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.
Sounds pinko to me.
Unfortunately, Graham’s thoughtful approach to Senate matters is fading fast. With his next primary election less than four years away, you can be sure there are Republicans — totally devoid of independence — who are ready to replace him.
Mitchel Olszak writes for the New Castle (Pa.) News.
