Really, do you think “Statesmen” are produced by this present system?
Rather, the Senate HAD Statesmen and subsequent to the 17th the traditions that encouraged them steadily eroded till we have this lot. They get worse, not better.
To paraphrase: With Statesmen like these who needs useless knaves and fools?
I think statesmen CAN be produced by the current system, but certainly not by returning to the prior system with its rampant corruption. The desire to have Henry Clays, John C. Calhouns and Daniel Websters won’t make it so. I’d rather modify who CAN vote. Universal suffrage is too close to direct democracy. Voting should be a privilege, not a right, and should fall on those with skin in the game, not parasites bleeding the nation dry.
Occasionally. The legendary "Mr. Republican" Bob Taft became Senator under the current system of direct elections, for example. (his portrait hangs on the Senate wall along side such greats as Daniel Webster) He was a fantastic leader in the 40s and 50s. I wish he had become President instead of Ike.
>> Rather, the Senate HAD Statesmen and subsequent to the 17th the traditions that encouraged them steadily eroded till we have this lot. They get worse, not better. <<
Most of the "statesmen" produced by the old system were around prior to the civil war. The Senators it produced during the Woodrow Wilson era (immediately prior to the ratification of the 17th) were a disgraceful lot, and even more corrupt and sleazy than the current crop of U.S. Senators. Becoming U.S. Senator through bribes and backroom deals was the norm in the early 20th century.