The United States Senate has always experienced its own bizarre form of corruption. The loyalty of 100 individuals, forced by constitutional circumstance into close quarters over a long period of time, becomes skewed away from constituents. A strange sense of family dominates what is said to be the most exclusive club in the world.

The bonding that results from a shared privilege is part of it. I recall my own student semester decades ago, watching the institution at work. Security was less of a byword in those days. It was not at all uncommon to bump into important people in the halls or even on elevators. Senators had their own reserved elevators, but some would occasionally take the public one, I suppose to show a sort of democratic spirit. That was the exception.

It was impressive to see the sort of efficient isolation at work. Even walking from one location to another, a Senator would be surrounded by a sort of traveling office. Staff members managed a paper flow as documents went into and out of Senatorial hands, augmenting discussions. Senators never opened doors. The traveling office handled that. If something needed signing, no stride was broken. A surface would appear, a pen would be produced, used by the Senator, and re-pocketed by an aide. The isolation was broken by the only regular association Senators experienced, that of each other.

The filibuster was one way the deliberative body stayed deliberate. Civil Rights legislation stayed bottled up as one or two Senators held up business by talking endlessly. The sole purpose was to take up time. The tactic was seldom used, partly because of the harm to the nation of extended stalling, but mostly because of the frailty of the human condition. Over time, Senatorial courtesy became exemplified in an overpowering sympathy for elderly colleagues pushing themselves to stand and talk for hours. A new practice refined the old tradition of filibuster. Now Senators may simply register an intent to talk forever, and the Senate adopts a polite fiction, holding up business as if they are indeed talking.

The loyalty of the tradition bound body extends to avoiding even bringing up matters that might embarrass fellow members. Al Franken introduced legislation supporting a teenage rape victim against the management of a military supplier who tried to prevent her from reporting the rape. Most Republicans backed management against the young woman. They were furious, but not at the rapists or the corporation in question. In their view, the real outrage was that their Senate colleague actually brought the issue to a vote. Senate tradition should have kept Franken from embarrassing them.

Republicans have become less idealistic, wishing aloud that death might overtake colleagues from the other side of the aisle. With the exception of newcomer Franken, the tradition lives mainly with nostalgic Democrats, longing for good old days among the good old boys. With the largest majority in generations, they are fleeced by flinty eyed opponents. Tradition lives.

The Founding Fathers would be appalled to learn that the framework they labored so valiantly to construct had been perverted by the filibuster.

 - - Elliot L. Richardson, 2005