‘Abolish the Senate’: Longest Serving House Dem Suggests Head-Scratching Way to End Political Gridlock

Photo by Emily Clack/Wikimedia Commons.

Former Congressman John Dingell (D-Mich.) found a new way to end gridlock on Capitol Hill — abolish the Senate.

Dingell was the longest serving member of the House of Representatives, serving for more than 59 years and retiring in 2015. So, his anti-Senate bias has been brewing for some time.

The former congressmen penned an op-ed in the Atlantic titled, “I Served in Congress Longer Than Anyone. Here’s How to Fix It.”

His answer: Abolish the Senate and take private money out of politics.

Dingell wrote:

“The Great Compromise, as it was called when it was adopted by the Constitution’s Framers, required that all states, big and small, have two senators. The idea that Rhode Island needed two U.S. senators to protect itself from being bullied by Massachusetts emerged under a system that governed only 4 million Americans.

Today, in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it’s downright dangerous. California has almost 40 million people, while the 20 smallest states have a combined population totaling less than that. Yet because of an 18th-century political deal, those 20 states have 40 senators, while California has just two. These sparsely populated, usually conservative states can block legislation supported by a majority of the American people. That’s just plain crazy.”

In other words, Dingell doesn’t believe those pesky conservative states should have influence in the policy of the entire nation. He called the idea of federalism and states’ rights “antiquated.”

Dingell is certainly right that the gridlock between the House and the Senate would be resolved if the Senate did not exist, but he failed to provide evidence that the gridlock would end just because there is only one body legislating.

Even the Republican-controlled Senate from the past two years struggled to get on the same page for most votes, including those on health care, the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and taxes. Every vote was a struggle.

Dingell wrote, “At a minimum, combine the two chambers into one, and the problem will be solved.”

He didn’t comment on the likelihood that spending votes would still need a supermajority to pass, just as they need 60 votes in the Senate today.

Although Dingell made it clear that he doesn’t want small states to have a say in national policy, his prescription for ending gridlock likely wouldn’t make a massive difference.

What do you think?

3 pledges
Upvote Downvote
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Charles Persinger
Member

Not know as dingy Dingell for nothing.

Patti Harrison
Member

Democrats are simply a joke nowadays!!!

William Wheeler
Member

Better yet DEMAND TERM LIMITS SO ASSHATS LIKE THAT CANT BE THERE IN PERPETUITY, with unlimited lobbyist funding to oppress any thought of competition in elections. The point of the Senate and the Electoral college was literally so that no single massive state or city could overrule the majority of other states will. And since Liberals Overwhelmingly live in urban cities, rural states that supply them with Water, Food, and Power need protection with equal say.

Raven
Member

WTF um Demloon asylum called said they want their nut back lol

Bruce Steger
Member

Our country is called The United States of America for a reason!!! It starts with Local city government, then County Government, then State Government that TWO State Senators represent each State!!! Then there is the House of Representatives that the Founding Fathers were wise to not have anymore say than the Senate!! Yet the States Senate representatives has a bill go through them before it goes to the President means they tweek the bill that it may get a signature!! This is how it is so get ov

Rick Oringel
Member

Dingell is one of the dumbest clowns in DC. His district was created so he could serve forever and then give his seat to his wife or child. What this country needs to solve gridlock is term limits so some of these morons can really work to earn a living like the rest of us instead of sucking on the teat of government for their whole career.

Tobiah S. Johnson
Member

John Who?????? Oh another washed up dumbocrat that cant stand the United States and how she is set up. The only point that I agree with is that the larger states should have more representatives. But our founding Fathers set up something called checks and balances. How about he stay retired.

Scott Phoenix
Member

It is idiots like this guy who made it necessary for the founding fathers to build checks and balances into our systems of government. Thank you for reminding us why they are important, Dingus…and for reminding us why electing democrats is a detriment to the health of our republic.

Tijuana Official Breaks Down the Eye-Popping Numbers on How Much the City Spends Per Day on the Caravan

Federal Court Uses First Amendment to Strike Down Law Blocking Encouragement of Illegal Immigration