UNDOING THE PROGRESSIVES' LEGACY

Recall the Recaller?: Calif. Democrat Raises Possibility of a
Retaliatory Recall Bid (Jake Tapper, Aug. 4, 2003, ABC News)

Just when you thought the California recall mess couldn't get any messier, one of the state's leading Democrats is threatening to up the ante.San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown warns that if Democratic Gov. Gray Davis is recalled, Democrats may retaliate by launching yet another recall.

"If it works for Republicans, all you've got to do is raise enough money," Brown told ABCNEWS. "I have enough money to have it work for
Democrats. And believe me, I think the Democrats will do it." [...]

It might not end in California, some political analysts say.

The Gray Davis years will have been worthwhile if they lead to a dumping of the insidious tools of direct democracy that the progressives installed to the detriment of the Republic.

MORE:
When reform goes awry (Des Moines Register Editorial Board, 08/04/2003)

While the Progressive reforms were meant to empower the people against the moneyed interests, in practice the devices often have been hijacked by special-interest groups. It takes millions of dollars to push an initiative or a recall in California. The consensus among scholars of government today is that initiative and recall were bad ideas.

So let's toss in a heretical thought about yet another Progressive reform - the direct election of U.S. senators. Maybe it wasn't such a hot idea, either.

Before the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, senators were chosen by the legislatures of their states. Direct election by the people was supposed to bypass the power of political machines, but - as we have seen in multimillion-dollar Senate campaigns -it probably increased the influence of money.

Having senators elected by legislatures provided a certain continuity in state and federal governments. If the Senate today were elected by state lawmakers, would Congress be as indifferent to the states' fiscal woes as it is? If, in voting for a state legislator, a voter were also indirectly picking a U.S. senator, would it provide more cohesion in politics?

That's idle speculation. No one would seriously suggest abolishing the direct election of senators - even though it might be yet another instance of good intentions gone awry.

Why isn't it a serious suggestion? Posted by Orrin Judd at August 5, 2003 8:53 AM