JOHN FUND'S WEIRDNESS:

In his Opinion Journal piece today ("Demolition Derby," link via How Appealing), John Fund says a few weird things. Take this key paragraph:

It reflects the nature of the modern Senate itself. The days when Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson could run the body like a ringmaster cracking his whip and cut binding deals with a single leader of the opposite party are over. Now the Senate is filled with 100 independent operators--all of them with egos and many who have grown cranky after years in the world's most exclusive legislative club.

Two things are wrong with the implied Senate history here. First, and most important, is the claim that Democrats are able to oppose many of Bush's proposals simply because of a lack of good Senate Republican leadership. I understand that the current script now is to criticize Bill Frist for his apparent lack of ability in keeping the Republican Senate focused on drilling through Senate custom and procedure in the attempt to push Bush's agenda. I understand that Republicans are now savoring their first real taste of unified government in a while, and that they also probably expect that the moment will be fleeting and that at some point before the decade is out, divided government is likely to return with a vengeange. Now it's time to tie the hands of future Congresses by running up huge bills that future Congresses (and the public) will need to pay. But it's just weird to claim that leadership in the Senate -- especially with a razor thin majority and an opposition relatively free of major fault lines -- can accomplish all that much.

Secondly: why is it wrong to claim that leadership is the issue? Because the Senate is not like the House, and this fact is not some newfangled corruption introduced by a combination of legacy of the age of Aquarius and the crappy leadership skills of weak-kneed southerners at the party's helm, as Fund implies. Remember the days when Senators viewed themselves as ambassadors from sovereign states? No, of course not, because that was a long time ago, and everyone who remembers those days is now dead. But the customs and procedures that reign in the Senate were formed in that period.

The Senate has always been more decentralized than the House. That's why the Rules Committee in the Senate is not nearly as powerful as the Rules Committee in the House (and that's why the Rules Committee was a good place for the Republicans to send Trent Lott: he can't do a lot of damage there). The old Senate rules are under attack by the Republicans, who are impatient with a unified minority party. Presumably, Fund would wish to continue the attack. Since I'm not so crazy about the undemocratic nature of Senate representation anyway, I have to say that in theory I am not so opposed to making the Senate more majoritarian. For the meantime, though, I'm pretty happy to have minoritarian moderation, even if it is called obstruction by Republicans.