AS I PREPARE TO RETIRE from 26 years of public life, I’ve been
asked to offer some advice to newly elected senators and to comment
on the Senate as an institution. While it’s always a bit
presumptuous for any retiring member to pass along counsel, here
are a couple of thoughts.
First, to new senators, you came here to get things done. To do
that, to be effective, you must be able to influence others. I’ve
found that the person with the most knowledge on a certain issue is
the one people tend to follow, regardless of formal leadership
title or seniority.
I’ve also learned that members need not limit their expertise to
just one or two issues, that it’s possible to be an expert on
several if you’re willing to put in the time and the effort.
Indeed, members are limited only by their capacity for work.
Knowledge is power; those who know their subject matter
best, and who are true to their word, can always be depended upon
as reliable resources. Influence—and, therefore,
effectiveness—follows.
As to the Senate, I share the view that all of Washington could
use a little more civility. Some, it seems, have lost the ability
to disagree without being disagreeable. This is usually
counter-productive, since the most effective Senate arguments are
those that are presented sensibly and that seek to form bridges of
common understanding. Now, that’s not the same as saying that
compromise is always best. Frequently, with enough time, a
compromise can be found; but ideology matters, and we shouldn’t
apologize for it. The Senate debates big issues; our constituents
sent us here to vote for what we truly believe is in the public
interest. The most successful senators can both stand tall for
their political philosophy and maintain working relationships with
members of the caucus opposite. The point is, one is usually more
persuasive when arguing liberal or conservative positions
“moderately”—that is, respectfully and reasonably.
The Senate is not the more chaotic, spontaneous, emotional House
of Representatives, nor should we try to make it so. The Founders
deliberately created one chamber to represent the people’s passions
and one to serve as a source of sober reflection, with more
protection and respect for the views of the minority. Both roles
are essential in our system of checks and balances.
The decline in civility is not the cause but a symptom of the
breakdown in the effectiveness of the Senate in the last two years.
The Senate hasn’t done much and has become so partisan because its
leadership has tried to shield members from tough votes that could
expose them to potential political attacks.
One way to avoid such votes is to deny the minority the right to
offer amendments, and there is a parliamentary procedure available
to the leader to achieve that. But in absolutely controlling the
debate, the majority leader of the Senate effectively becomes the
equivalent of the Speaker of the House: in total control and able
to stifle the minority party’s voice. Rather than enshrine that in
Senate precedent, as the current leader has said he will try to do,
the Senate should stick with the rules that have guided it for many
decades. The problem today is not the rules; it’s the overly
partisan nature of some leaders and many followers.
The new dynamic of the 24/7 media cycle and the Twitter age has
fostered this partisanship and constant politicking. Indeed, it
seems that the next election has already begun almost as soon as
the previous one has wrapped up. In this era of nonstop politics,
the right kind of leadership is even more important—from the
president and from those in Congress.
I can’t imagine a better job than representing Arizonans—and all
Americans—in the United States Senate. That I have chosen not to
seek re-election has little to do with the less appealing aspects
of the job (some discussed here), but, rather, my sense that, for
me, this was the right time. I wish the best for all who resume the
work of the Senate on January 3.
