Wow. I got quite a few responses to this semi-rhetorical question in my last post :

What is it about the makeup of the Senate that makes the body immune to the “fickleness and passion” of the House?

Though I used this to slam the disproportionate representation of small population states, I received plenty of reminders about two additional aspects that make the Senate unique. As reader Bob of Bob’s Links and Rants put it :

I think Madison and Washington were referring to two aspects of the Senate, as originally conceived, which were to give it the calming effect they refer to. First, senators serve six-year terms, hopefully making them less susceptible to constant re-election pressure and therefore freer to think in the long term. Secondly, senators were originally chosen by state legislators, not directly by the voters, providing them an additional buffer from the supposed whims of the populace.

I agree with you that the over-representation of small-population states is undemocratic (although it was seemingly a necessary compromise to get the Constitution ratified in the first place). I don’t agree, however, that there is something fundamentally wrong with having a brake on the too-rapid implementation of legislation.

I agree in theory about the positive aspects of a bicameral legislature in which one body is expected to be more deliberative and cautioned, but does the idea that the Senate are the “grown-ups” as compared to the House really apply anymore? It seems that the last few years have seen a string of failures that lay to rest the notion that the Senate is a more civilized institution than the House. If there is still a difference today, I’d credit it to lowering of the bar by Tom DeLay and his cohorts than any maturity on behalf of the Senatorial elites.

Additionally, I’m not entirely convinced that the six-year term limit gives Senators the freedom that they might lack in the House (especially considering that the Senate is the home of the world’s biggest ass-kisser), but I guess it does help that the entire body isn’t replaced (at least in theory) every two years. As far as the Senators being chosen by state legislatures, I think in some ways that’s a good idea (at least, in terms of the framers’ intent), but the 17th Amendment made that a moot point anyways.

Elaborating on the “cooler heads” point is this email from Peter Gross :

[T]he US gov’t is set up to protect the rich from “the tyranny of the masses.” ( I forget who’s quote it is. Possibly Madison. Read federalist paper #10)

The House, being set up by population, was designed to be a little more off the hook. A little wild. The senate was designed to be a more “elite” and well mannered(!) institution.

The whole shebang was designed to make change (from the ruling elite paradigm) VERY slow and difficult. So that’s what Washington may have meant when he said “cool” the house. The rambunctious house might actually pass a piece of populist legislation. The Senate can keep it from going any farther.

Whenever these guys talk about “the American People,” they’re not talking about us. They’re just talking about themselves.

Needless to say, the whole dammned government is “off the hook” now. This is an interesting topic, so discuss it amongst yourselves in the comments. I’m gonna get a stiff drink…