Why American Politics Lean "Center-Right" even when public opinion doesn't?

[zaj]

Just heard a discussion on Hardball that for whatever reason helped me connect everything on this issue.

Our politics are center-right even when our national public opinion might not be... because of the Senate. It's designed to represent the interests of the states but in the end it puts the interests of the smaller more conservative populations on an equal footing with larger more liberal populations.

While the House may lean more center to center-left the Senate gets a trump card and leans center-right. So our policies lean center right.

This dynamic then defines the media narrative and then the "conventional wisdom" gets defined as our nation being defined as a "center-right" nation. That reenforces the belief and over time people define themselves broadly as "center-right" even when on an issue-by-issue basis, most people lean center-left.

It might also explain why other democracies through-out the world tend to not lean to the right like ours does... if they don't have a legislative body similar to the Senate that functions as a co-equal branch to the House but doesn't making minority populations (conservative opinion in the US) equal in power and influence to majority populations (liberal opinion in the US).

[zbdent]

1. wasn't there an article noted on DU about how a CONSERVATIVE was

arguing that there wasn't ENOUGH people in DC? That there was "under-representation"?

Of course, someone pointed out to the conservative writer (not that he would listen) that the smaller (in population, not square mileage) states were OVER-REPRESENTED in the Senate ...

[GreenArrow]

2. Beacuse American business interests

lean center right, and with few exceptions, have largely bought the government.

[Cirque du So-What]

3. What you said

I think it's even worse than when robber barons operated with impunity during the 'gilded age.'

[Selatius]

4. But, also, most nations in the industrialized world have publicly funded elections.

In the US, it is up to individual donors to give to a candidate, and the rich have the most money. The rich have enjoyed a competitive advantage for a while.

[Yurovsky]

5. The Senate needs to become the House of Lords...

and have similar power as does the "upper chamber" in the UK (now largely ceremonial).

The Senate really undercuts the "one person, one vote" principle of our nation's founding.

[burning rain]

6. You're saying dangerous things.

Don't you know you're supposed to worship our slave-owning, aristocratic, not-letting-women-vote Founders as infallible; and affirm that their vision of government, including the Senate, is the last word, sacred and unalterable for all time?

k & r

[OHdem10]

7. The Health Insurance Reform Plan was written by Senators from

States whose populations are around 600.000people (the whole state)

The very concept of 2 Senators per state no matter how large the
state or how small the state is constitutional but does it create
some horrible situations.

[zaj]

8. Repeal of 17th Amendment but make the proportional by population?

These threads got me thinking about options for changing the makeup of the Senate...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7687517
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2448556/posts

... since the State's Righty's seem to want to put the selection of Senators into the hands of the state legislators, maybe there is a compromise that could work more effectively (would never be adopted, but we can dream).

Have Senators be directly appointed by the state legislature, but make the number of seats in the Senate variable by state population.

Curious what the ramifications of that might be...