By finalizing the transition of the Senate into House v2.0.
This week the Atlantic ran an article by Eric Orts, arguing for a major change in how seats to the U.S. Senate are apportioned. Like many others, he believes that small states have too much power in our legislative upper body. This idea floats around a lot, especially when Republicans control the Senate. Instead, he would give every state one senator to start with, then apportion the rest based on population. California, for example, would have 12, while Rhode Island would have 1.
Let’s set aside the broad arguments about this issue, such as the fact that limiting the power of the larger, more powerful states was a feature, not a bug of the U.S. Constitution, and that in all likelihood the plan Orts lays out violates that document.
“Violates” it? “In all likelihood”? My God, man, it directly contradicts it.
I’d like to investigate just one of the claims Orts makes. In the essay, he contends that the Senate’s two per state apportionment is a “vehicle entrenching white supremacy.” His argument is that because most small states are predominantly white, white voters are being overrepresented. He views this not only as an example of white supremacy, but one that works to ensure the permanence of white supremacy. But is that true?
It not only isn’t true, it’s preposterous. However, underpinning that facile tommyrot is a deeper, more pernicious assumption, one we’ve too long been struggling under: that no non-white or female can possibly be properly represented by someone not of their own race, ethnicity, or gender—that any such representation must necessarily be not only inadequate in and of itself but morally wrong, and a violation of their rights.
Of course, that’s hardly the only problem with Orts’ foolish, disingenuous proposal. By carefully-considered design, the Senate was created not to provide representation for the people, but for the states. You folks know this already, natch, I’ve railed about this plenty here. If you had to pick a single Amendment as the one that wrought the most damage on the Republic as founded—never mind for the nonce the damage done by the gutting or just outright disregarding of most of the first ten—the 17th would probably have to be it. That one misbegotten amendment upended pretty much every concept behind our original federal system all by itself.
Unfortunately, the assumption underlying Orts’ argument is an ugly one. His claim only works if it is true that, either consciously or unconsciously, white voters favor politicians and programs that are better for white people and that this preference for white supremacy is an essential element in how they vote. If this were true, however, wouldn’t we see white voters overwhelmingly flock to the political party that best supported these supposedly white supremacist policies?
I dunno; as whites slowly continue to be pushed into minority status, helped along by Uniparty-sanctioned open borders, we could well see that very thing happen before the nightmarish onset of whatever Great Schism awaits us. And the moment whites, especially white males, do start voting with their own interests foremost in mind, the lamentations and OUTRAGE!™ from the Left will reach welkin-ringing proportions.
Sadly, Orts’ claim appears to be nothing more than a flimsy attempt to point at something he disagrees with and yell racist.
Well, could be, I guess. Really, though, I can’t help but wonder at this point if Orts’ noxious proposal isn’t part of a larger, sneakier plan to move on past the destruction of America That Was and start getting things set up the way the Left always wanted them to be. Maybe it’s unreasonable to assume he’s malevolent when just plain stupid might fit the bill. Then again, it ain’t paranoia if they really ARE out to get you.