Why "Right-Wingers" are Right on the 17th Amendment

According to this piece in the Huffington Post, it's "right-wing" to have reservations about the 17th Amendment. I don't consider myself "right-wing," but I'm no fan of this particular amendment.

Before 1913, when the constitution was changed, federal senators were chosen by state legislatures. The Senate was to be removed from popular opinion in a way the House of Representatives was not. Not only did senators serve for six years, but they would never have to campaign in the way that their colleagues in the house had to do. In theory, the filter of the state legislatures would provide more able senators than the base tastes of the masses could produce.

In the early 20th century, Progressives systematically opposed government by elites. They advocated for popular votes in primaries and Senate elections, demanded greater transparency in local executives, railed against special interests like railroads and food producers who did harm to people, and defended the rights of minorities, women and children, all of whom were essentially defenseless against the back-room power of caucuses and state legislatures. And for sure, cronyism and corruption wafted from the halls of capitol buildings everywhere from Albany to Sacramento. Calling for greater public accountability made (and makes) a lot of sense.

But the direct election of the US Senate does change the basic structure of the federal government and alters the way the constitution works. It's not at all clear to me, for example, that a guy like Ted Cruz could have made it to the Senate through the Texas legislature, because the crass demagoguery characteristic of his campaigns would be irrelevant. Maybe the Texas legislature is also filled with TEA Party yahoos, but in the case nothing could be done. Both houses of Congress now must bow to popular whims; would people like Arlen Spector lose their jobs if they were not directly elected? And look at the effect of direct election on the House: John Boehner has to behave like a craven dog at the feet of a tiny minority because he's worried about the next election.

So repeal of the 17th Amendment, or even an end-around of it, may not be the best idea, but at least it's not just "right wing."