Holding to the idea of “New World Order” as an actual entity does not bode well for your debating stance.
Why not just abolish the Senate entirely? Every plan submitted at the Constitutional Convention called for a two-house Congress on the theory that legislative power should be weakened by division. But nowadays, and for some time past, most government actions that could be considered abuses of power come from the executive branch, not the legislative. A one-house Congress would be much more powerful as against the presidency, which is exactly what we need at this stage in our history.
Holding to the idea that the global economy is an actual entity does not bode well for your… oh, never mind.
Razorsharp, a “global economy” has existed ever since the world became economically integrated enough that a financial crisis in London could send shock waves as far as Japan – which has been the case at least since the early 20th century. What does that have to do with the “New World Order”? And what does either have to do with our method for electing senators?
And the “New World Order” has existed ever since a group of nations got together and collectively decided what would be best for a country outside of the “group”.
As for what this has to do with the method of electing our Senators, today we have Senators that are beholden to that abstract concept of the “New World Order” or “globalism”, if that is the term you prefer.
And the support for globalization by Senators would be prevented by having old-style state-based selection… how?
The theory would be that appointed Senators would be insulated from campaign contributions from special interest groups.
So, instead of being ultimately accountable to the electorate, the Senators appease a handful of state legislators, who are dependent on campaign contributions from special interest groups?
That’s a failure of the executive branch. So blame the President, not the Senate.
I guess what you would rebut that
-
accountability to the electorate is not a significant factor in reality
-
it’s easier for foreign special interests to influence two senators directly than it would be for foreign special interests to influence the 40 state legislators electing the senators in a given state, and
-
therefore, use the state legislatures as a buffer?
“Accountable to the electorate”? What a joke! (Like the “electorate” really cares.
Of the percentage of the population that even bothers to register to vote, less than half even bother to even show up at the polls.
Of those, the majority of them hold the same allegiance to their political party, that one usually reserves for their favorite sports team.
I chuckle each time I hear some self-serving political hack speak of “the will of the people”.
But that’s true in elections for state offices too. In fact, there’s smaller voter turnout when only state or local offices are up for election.
-
Senators are corrupted by special interests via campaign contributions and nonresponsive to the needs of the public
-
The electorate does not act as a potent political check
Therefore,
- Have Senators appointed by state legislators who are corrupted by special interests and nonresponsive to the needs of the public?
It seems the root of the problem, as you have described it, is that elected officials, regardless of the office held, are corrupted by special interests and nonresponsive to the needs of the public because of campaign contributions and that the electorate does not act as a potent political check.
Accordingly, it seems that the call to repeal the 17th Amendment to address this problem is nothing more than a shell game. Maybe campaign finance reform, term limits, or a Constitutional Amendment to address Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) would better suit your cause.
… or perhaps the issue is that the Senators are bending too easily to the will of foreign special interests as opposed to domestic special interests … ?