Have to agree with this:
...reader Stan Brown emails: "I'm watching the Senate hearing and listening to the senators question Paulson, Cox and Bernanke. The markets continue to fall as investors also listen. Clearly, if experience in the Senate leads to the performance we are watching today, experience is seriously overrated. These senators are frightening." I feel that way every time I watch a Senate hearing. Where do we get these people?
The last time a Senator was elected president was almost fifty years ago. There's a reason for that. The only time it will happen this year is that both parties were foolish enough to make one the nominee. It's almost like the process of becoming a senator selects for mediocrity.
It should just be made explicit that the Legislative and Executive branches are separate career paths. Getting elected to one should immediately disqualify you for the other. That should encourage smarter self-selection.
Hmm, well, LBJ was Senator when he was chosen by Kennedy to be his VP candidate in 1960, and then was elected in his own right in 1964. Also, Nixon was Senator when he was chosen by Eisenhower to be his VP candidate in 1952, and won election on his own in 1968 and 1972. So if we're counting former Senators, too, arguably it's been a little more recent than Kennedy.
Not...er...that LBJ and Nixon are examples of Senators becoming President that are going to contradict the thesis that Senators don't make especially good Presidents.
I find it curious that up until about this century, the post of Vice-President was not considered useful training to be President. The most apt experience was generally considered being in the Cabinet, e.g. Secretary of State or of War. Funny that this is no longer true.
Carl, my point was that few sitting Senators have been elected president, and none since Kennedy. When Johnson was elected, he was a president. And Nixon had been Vice President (and run for governor) before winning the presidency.
One bizarre criticism of the U.S. Senate from left-wing sources, is that the Senate contributes to a RIGHT wing bias in American representative democracy.
The left-wing theory is that since a disproportunate number of senators come from small states, therefore the Senate is too right-wing and that distorts American democracy. Of course the evidence as opposed to theory, is that the Senate is a more left-wing institution than the House of Representatives and has been for a long time now. But who are the lefties to let a little evidence get in the way of good theory?
These left wing theorists are therefore hot to disband the U.S. Senate, convinced that this would usher in some sort of socialist utopia. Sheesh!
"The left-wing theory is that since a disproportunate number of senators come from small states, therefore the Senate is too right-wing and that distorts American democracy."
They are right about the theory, if wrong in its practice. The Senate was supposed to be a conservative, relatively undemocratic institution, compared to the House anyway. That was its purpose - to serve as a break on madcap ideas from the lower house. It's a pity it no longer works in that way.
That's interesting. Does anyone have a counter- theory for why the Senate has been more left-leaning than expected?
On the other hand, is the Senate really left-leaning? I'd like to see a chart showing when the Senate was controlled by each party, but a quick google search didn't yield what I was looking for, so I'm lazily asking here.
thanks to the 17th Amendment, the Senator is just as venal, idiotic, and rent-seeking as your average Congresscritter or Presidential candidate. Repeal of same would be a good first step.
> Does anyone have a counter- theory for why the Senate has been more left-leaning than expected?
Because it's fairly easy to drop in a bunch of money and pick up a seat.
Tesler's win in MT is merely one of the more recent examples.