passed yesterday,
at age 92.
51 years in the U.S. Senate;
+ 6 years in the House = he's longest-serving member of Congress.
Beyond high school, he was self-educated.
Not only read books; he wrote some.
(I was surprised and shocked when I read headline in today's N.Y. Times,
"...a Pillar of the Senate, dies at 92" --
now why, I ask myself, does that surprise me?
I'm always surprised when I hear someone has died or got divorced.
These things should not surprise me, logically:
most people get divorced, and
Everybody dies.
But I am still surprised.)
Reading about Senator Byrd, I was reminded of two topics which I've thought a lot about:
1. Seniority and clout, and
2. Term limits.
1. Seniority and clout.
Politicians who have served some of the longest terms in Washington are from Southern states: the ones who come to mind -- Senator Byrd ( W. Virginia); Jesse Helms (a Carolina); Claude Pepper (Florida); and Strom Thurmond (? -- have to look him up -- South Carolina)-- and Helms, N. Carolina ...
I noticed and wondered why: in the state where I live, which is not Southern, our voters make a point to periodically elect somebody new and basically "throw out" whichever of our Washington senators has lasted the longest. In my lifetime, I've seen 'em do it to Democrats and Republicans alike.
As soon as our senator gets "up there" -- through service, and seniority, earning a position as chairman of this-or-that key committee, our voters basically say "Screw you" and elect somebody new. I've worked to understand the mind-set. It's as if the voters in our state are not looking at the issues and what the senator has accomplished and what he can accomplish with whatever amount of clout he's earned. Rather, our voters are looking at the person who is senator and saying, "We can take you out; watch this!"
It's like -- using one's vote as an expression of aimless hostility. It would seem to reflect a mind-set lacking in maturity.
Are Southern voters more "mature" -- emotionally and intellectually -- than the voters in my state?
Those states are older; they have a longer history than we do.
Our voters surely do not take seriously or understand what a senator in an influential position (someone who has earned the respect of his colleagues, someone with clout) can do. When we vote, we're not taking the long view.
Is this because of a different type of person? Or a different local history? Or both? Or something else?
2. Term Limits.
In line with the attitude I wrote about in Item #1, "term limits" got traction with our state's voters in the mid-nineties and now our state senators and representatives are term-limited. If the voters don't vote you out, you will be automatically term-limited out.
It's the same mind-set: rather than focusing on accomplishing something, or being supportive of good government, our sytem is rigged to focus on throwing out elected representatives and senators. (Are our state's voters not intelligent enough to go to the polls and vote for the challenger in order to defeat the incumbent? Apparently not -- we've set up the system to automatically remove the incumbent after a specified period of time, irrespective of whether the person is doing a good job or not. It's sort of an "anti-" attitude. It's a case of voters removing power from themselves and giving it to the system.
With a dis-empowered legislature, more power has been informally and unofficially handed over to -- a) the governor's office, and b) the bureaucracy.
{N.Y. Times article, from today's Byrd story}:
[Senator Byrd] was profoundly self-educated and well-read. His Senate speeches sparkled with citations from Shakespeare, the King James version of the Bible and the histories of England, Greece and Rome.
As a champion of the legislative branch, he found cautionary tales in those histories. In 1993, as Congress weighed a line-item veto, which would have given President Bill Clinton the power to strike individual spending measures from bills, Mr. Byrd delivered 14 speeches on the history of Rome and the role of its Senate.
"Gaius Julius Caesar did not seize power in Rome," he said. "Rather,...the Roman Senate thrust power on Caesar deliberately, with forethought, with surrender, with intent to escape from responsibility."
[end quote]
-------------------------------------------------------
The approach of the Roman Senate comes from a "term-limits" type of mind-set, I think.
And -- 14 speeches! Fourteen! Like -- 11 speeches wouldn't have been enough -- thirteen wouldn't quite do it; no, he came up with fourteen speeches!
I like a legislator with that kind of enthusiasm.
Senator Byrd, I applaud you!
I want those speeches....
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment