Replies

The 17th Amendment was, very openly, part of the "Progressive" agenda in the early 20th century. Better to ask why such an amendment was so desired, or even necessary. In study of Theodore Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's administrations (both of whom were proud Progressives), the superiority of the Federal government was accepted as "inevitable," even something already accomplished. Nationalism together with Mobilization on behalf of our efforts in "the Great War" in Wilson's 2nd term, sealed its fate.

Those voices questioning the dominance of Washington did not begin to find a voice until the austerity implemented by the Harding and Coolidge administrations following World War I when Washington was faced with the once unimaginable $6 billion federal debt, and before this the first Senate rejection of a negotiated treaty, the League of Nations. The 17th Amendment was ratified amidst the fog of such a time.

At that moment in our history Progressivism and what Wilson called "Americanism" were difficult to distinguish. "Federalism" as Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan eventually understood it had no Party.

All of this is sketched out in very broad strokes, of course, as none of it was anything like that simple.

Coolidge, who originally embraced progressivism, perhaps unwittingly challenged its central planks as Massachusetts' governor when he fired the Boston police strikers, as Wilson issued uncertain statements pushing the League out west, in the year before the GOP convention in 1920 literally demanded his nomination for Vice President.

Back to the present... one of the best arguments I've heard put forth in favor of the 17th amendment's repeal cites the almost invisibility of the state legislatures. Perhaps the People and their media outlets would pay much more needed attention to the shenanigans happening in their state capitals if their legislatures picked Senators and had, also, the power to recall them!

Perhaps the People and their media outlets would pay much more needed attention to the shenanigans happening in their state capitals if their legislatures picked Senators and had, also, the power to recall them!

Prior to the 17th, although there wasn't an explicit recall power, there was a de facto recall power in that the state legislature could refuse to send the Senator back. The intent was that the state legislature, sensitive to the feelings of the people, would preserve their own positions by sending someone to Congress who was acceptable to the people or face their own electoral loss.

Today, it is almost impossible to replace a Senator. Only death in office or the most extreme of scandals creates a vacancy these days.

-PJ