There was a mixture of nostalgia and dismay at a recent reunion of former senators and staff members in Washington. The occasion was the release of a book, “The Last Great Senate,” by Ira Shapiro.
The book focuses on the Senate of the 1960s and ’70s, particularly the late ’70s. It generated wistful sentiments among many of those at the gathering who had been active in the Senate during that period.
The dismay was over how diff erent today’s Senate is from the Senate where they labored a few decades ago.
Of course, there is a tendency for any of us to think of an era or events in which we were involved as “the greatest.” The contrast between the present-day Senate and that of the earlier period is painfully obvious, however, and that would be clear to anyone reading Shapiro’s book.
Although it was encouraging to see eventual cooperation between the two parties on the extension of the payroll tax cut earlier this month and we can hope that there might be further such examples ahead, the reality is today’s Congress is characterized by gridlock and extreme partisanship.
In today’s Senate, routinematters and nominations often require 60 votes even before they can come up for consideration. This grotesque misuse of Senate procedures is a blight upon this pillar of American democracy. But it exemplifi es what the Senate has become: a forum for partisan agendas and for belittling and demonizing those with diff erent perspectives.
Perhaps nothing better demonstrates the diff erence between the current Senate and the “old” Senate than the statement by Republican leader Mitch McConnell that his primary objective is to defeat Barack Obama, placing that above making the Senate work for the benefit of the nation.
Contrast McConnell’s political preoccupation to Mike Mansfi eld’s view of the Senate’s role. Majority leader from 1961-76, Mansfield said, “It is not the individuals of the Senate who are important. It is the institution of the Senate, itis the Senate itself as one of the foundations of the Constitution. It is the Senate as one of the rocks of the republic.”
I had the good fortune to work for Robert Byrd during his time as majority leader and for Arkansas’s J.
William Fulbright, longestserving chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. These were two of the more signifi cant fi gures in Senate history, both of whom greatly respected the institution and its constitutional responsibilities.
Byrd, who succeeded Mansfield as majority leader, worked tirelessly to see that the Senate’s constitutional role was fulfi lled. During his tenure there were hardfought legislative battles, but in most cases, Democrats and Republicans worked together to fi nd common ground in dealing with critical foreign policy and domestic issues. That was certainly true with the vigorously debated Panama Canal Treaties of 1978.
Byrd and his Republican counterpart, Howard Baker, worked together to fi nd a path to approval of the treaties, and members of both parties played key parts in that process.
Senators and staff members of that day worked to solve problems, not to create them, which seems tobe today’s modus operandi.
It was not just the unique senators and staff ers of that earlier era, Shapiro writes, nor was it the crisis times they faced that made the Senate great. “It was a concept of the Senate that they shared.” It was a Senate that functioned on the basis of mutual respect, tolerance of opposing views and willingness to work for bipartisan solutions.
That’s not to say those senators were without flaws or foibles or there were not examples of hardball politics. The “old” Senate was not withoutits obstructionists such as Republican Jesse Helms and Democrat Jim Allen.
They had the opportunity to make the case for their views, but they did not bring the Senate to a halt as is frequently the case with today’s obstructionists.
There are good men and women in today’s Senate.
But they are bound up in an atmosphere that gives priority to political goals and disdains compromise, leaving the Senate to become merely an extension of the confl ict between political parties, a hollow shell where politicaladvantage takes precedence over national interest.
The era of Senate greatness described in Shapiro’s book certainly bears little resemblance to today’s dysfunctional legislative body.
Was it the “last” great Senate? We can only hope not.
HOYT PURVIS IS A JOURNALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR. HE SERVED AS PRESS SECRETARY TO SEN. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT AND AS FOREIGN/ DEFENSE POLICY ADVISOR TO SENATE MAJORITY LEADER ROBERT BYRD.
Opinion, Pages 15 on 02/26/2012