Anxious Moments

Last week, Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) expressed his dismay with the motion of Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) to dismiss the articles of impeachment. In an emotional tone, Hyde said he was “astounded” by the treatment House managers had received in the Senate. He warned that senators had “fallen short on the respect side” in their response to the managers, who are “kind of blue-collar people,” according to Hyde.

The two chambers of Congress have locked horns over the impeachment process. The House managers have applied tremendous pressure against the Senate’s desire to limit the trial and have insisted that removing the president from office is the only constitutional end to this saga. The Senate has looked for a more dignified process and moderate solution.

Each side has attempted to counterbalance the political weight of the other. Early last week, the House tried to push the Senate to depose 15 witnesses, which the Senate ultimately reduced to three. While the managers insist the president should be removed, some Senate Republicans have signaled support for alternatives, such as censure or conviction without removal. Battles are taking place, not just between Congress and the president, or Democrats versus Republicans, but between the House and Senate.

While this explosive conflict might be surprising to some, it grows out of a historic tension that has existed between the House and Senate since the nation’s founding. The Founding Fathers built in tensions between these two bodies to create a stable political process. The House of Representatives would be the “popular” branch, its members more responsive to the citizens who elected them directly. When the founders wrote about being responsive, they spoke in the 18th-century terminology of the local interests rather than the 20th-century meaning of “national opinion.” The Senate, according to the founders, would check the demands of the House by being more insulated from political pressure and more deliberative in its proceedings.

The founders created the House to be responsive, in similar fashion as Britain’s House of Commons. As a result of frequent and direct elections by small constituencies, the founders expected House members to be of similar social classes as those who put them in office. Early commentators indicated these expectations were fulfilled. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835 that he was astonished by the “vulgar demeanor” of the House, noting it was full of “obscure people whose names form no picture in one’s mind. They are mostly village lawyers, tradesmen or even men of the lowest classes.” Rather than shy away from this, House members have prided themselves on their reputation as a reflection of their democratic institution and their closeness to constituents.

The founders meant the Senate to be more elite and insulated from popular demands, much like Britain’s aristocratic House of Lords. Until 1913, senators were not even elected directly, but selected by state legislatures. Their six-year terms aimed to protect them from political concerns. James Madison expressed this sentiment in Federalist No. 63, when he wrote the Senate was to “suspend the blow mediated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind.” Senators would make sure, Madison wrote, that the people were not “misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men.” Thus, the founders entrusted final judgment on impeachment to the Senate rather than to the House.

In his classic book on the House, historian George Galloway recalled a story that captures the intentions of the designers of this bifurcated system. Upon returning from France, Thomas Jefferson had breakfast with George Washington. Jefferson asked Washington why he had agreed to a second chamber in Congress. Washington responded with a question: “Why did you pour that tea in your saucer?” When Jefferson replied, “To cool it,” Washington explained: “Just so, we pour House legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

As a result of this design, tensions have always existed between the House and the Senate. The culture of each body has nurtured a contrasting style of leadership. Representatives favored a style of governance that accentuated bold, passionate and partisan action while senators favored restraint and incremental change.

The perceptions of the two bodies are often based on myth rather than reality. Incumbent representatives in the House, heavily supported by elite business interests, often have little to do with Main Street. Similarly, senators often display the partisan rancor expected from the House. Indeed, the Senate has become far more partisan since the 1970s, as Thursday’s votes on witnesses made clear. In many respects, the Senate looks much more like the House these days.

But the inherent tensions between representatives and senators have been particularly clear at certain moments in U.S. history, for example, during the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Radical Republicans in the House, led by Thaddeus Stevens and Benjamin Butler, successfully pushed the impeachment through that body. Though the trial in the Senate took on a partisan tone, with House managers applying great pressure to vote on party lines, enough GOP senators resisted on the ground that removing the president on flimsy charges would harm the separation of powers. After seven Republican senators defected, the Senate fell short by one vote of the number needed to convict.

Changes since the 1970s have aggravated the tensions that currently exist between the House and Senate. The independent prosecutor, created in 1978, and the mass media have reduced the control of both chambers over the impeachment process. These forces have led members from both sides in the trial to take out their frustration on one another.

In addition, much of the informal comity that characterized personal relations between members of Congress for much of this century has disappeared. Behind the scenes, members of Congress had shared strong social ties that blunted tensions. In the 1950s and 1960s, senior members of the House and Senate could be found at the same parties, watering holes and social functions. This is no longer true. As the social ties that bind Congress weakened, institutional divisions have, in turn, become stronger. Meanwhile, the political center has become smaller than ever in the House and Senate. This is significant, since centrists traditionally helped bridge divisions--not just between parties, but between the two bodies of Congress.

It is worth noting that voters and their elected leaders have consciously rejected alternatives. There was a historical detour between World War II and the 1970s, when House leaders acted like senators. During this period, the House was run by strong committee leaders, such as Wilbur D. Mills and Emanuel Celler, who fostered bipartisan agreements and were relatively insulated from the House floor. They also regularly held office for many years, rarely facing opposition. Many of these House chairmen worked in secret and valued compromise.

But this unusual period ended in the 1970s, when reforms eroded the power of strong committee chairmen. Reformers at that time were frustrated with the way the committee system had insulated the leadership, limited bold policy initiatives and diminished partisan power. A new generation of activist partisans, both Democratic and Republican, took over. In the end, the electorate reformed the House by breaking up the power of committee chairs, increasing the role of party leaders and voting in more rancorous and activist representatives.

So when Hyde issued his complaint he spoke in words Madison might have predicted. Over the past few months, the House has operated in a far more freewheeling fashion, with a majority party stimulated by its political base, while the Senate has been acting as a saucer, filtering and cooling the passions that emerged. Though many in the Senate share the House managers contempt for Clinton’s actions, they seem less willing to accept the bold punishment of impeachment and have thus far constrained the trial process.

Those who fear that tensions between the House and Senate have reached a dangerous level might find solace in history. This system has created a durable government for more than 200 years. Tensions between the branches have proved an effective means of resolving difficult and controversial questions. As much as representatives and senators might dislike each other after the Clinton trial is completed, it is likely that both bodies will return to their business, just as the founders expected.*