Senator Ben Sasse spoke on the Senate floor for the first time yesterday.
“Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to speak from the floor for the first time today. I have never been in politics before, and intentionally waited to speak,” the Nebraska senator, who was elected last year, began.
He explained why he waited a year to speak.
I helped over a dozen organizations through some very ugly strategic crises, and one important lesson I have learned again and again when you walk into any broken organization is that there is a very delicate balance between expressing human empathy on the one hand and not becoming willing to passively sweep hard truths under the rug on the other. It is essential to listen first, to ask questions first, and to learn how a broken institution got to where it is because there are reasons. People very rarely try to break special institutions that they inherit. Things fray and break for reasons.
Still, empathy cannot change the reality that a bankrupt company is costing more to produce its products than customers are willing to pay for them, that a college that has too few students is out not only of money but out of spirit. This is the two-part posture I have tried to adopt during my rookie year here. Because of this goal of empathetic listening first and interviewing first and because of a pledge I made to Nebraskans–in deference to an old Senate decision–last year I have waited
Still, empathy cannot change the reality that a bankrupt company is costing more to produce its products than customers are willing to pay for them, that a college that has too few students is out not only of money but out of spirit. This is the two-part posture I have tried to adopt during my rookie year here. Because of this goal of empathetic listening first and interviewing first and because of a pledge I made to Nebraskans–in deference to an old Senate decision–last year I have waited
Sasse went on to criticize the Republican majority, grandstanders, and Democrats.
To the Republicans, those of us who would claim that the new majority is leading the way, few people believe it. To the grandstanders who would try to use this institution chiefly just as a platform for outside pursuits, few believe that the country’s needs are as important to you as your own ambitions.
To the Democrats who did this body great harm through nuclear tactics, few believe that bare-knuckled politics are a substitute for principled governing.
Who among us doubts that many–both on the right and on the left–are now salivating for more of these radical tactics? The people despise us all.
To the Democrats who did this body great harm through nuclear tactics, few believe that bare-knuckled politics are a substitute for principled governing.
Who among us doubts that many–both on the right and on the left–are now salivating for more of these radical tactics? The people despise us all.
Sasse criticized the Senate for not doing its job.
Why is this? Because we are not doing our job. We are not doing the primary things that the people sent us here to do. We are not tackling the great national problems that worry our bosses at home. I therefore propose a thought experiment. If the Senate isn’t going to be the venue for addressing our biggest national problems, where should we tell people that venue is? Where should they look for long-term national prioritization if it doesn’t happen on this floor? To ask it more directly of ourselves.
Sasse also addressed what he thinks is wrong with the Senate.
I have asked many of you what you think is wrong with the Senate. What is wrong with us? As in most struggling organizations, in private it is amazing how much common agreement there actually is. There is so much common agreement about what around here incentivizes short-term thinking and behavior over long-term thinking, behaving, and planning.
The incessant fundraising, the ubiquity of cameras everywhere that we talk, the normalization over the last decade of using many Senate rules as just shirts-and-skins exercises, the constant travel–again, fundraising–meaning, sadly, many families around here get ripped up. That is one of the things we hear about most in private in this body. This is not to suggest that there is unanimity among you in these private conversations. The divergence is actually most pronounced at the question of what comes next and whether permanent institutional decline is inevitable in this body. Some of you are hopeful for a recovery of a vibrant institutional culture, but I think the majority of you, from my conversations, are pessimistic. The most common framing of this question or this worry is this: OK. So maybe this isn’t the high moment in the history of the Senate, but isn’t the dysfunction in here merely an echo of the broader political polarization out there? It is an important question. Isn’t the Senate broken merely because of a larger shattered consensus of shared belief across 320 million people in this land? Surely that is part of the story, but there is much more to say.
The incessant fundraising, the ubiquity of cameras everywhere that we talk, the normalization over the last decade of using many Senate rules as just shirts-and-skins exercises, the constant travel–again, fundraising–meaning, sadly, many families around here get ripped up. That is one of the things we hear about most in private in this body. This is not to suggest that there is unanimity among you in these private conversations. The divergence is actually most pronounced at the question of what comes next and whether permanent institutional decline is inevitable in this body. Some of you are hopeful for a recovery of a vibrant institutional culture, but I think the majority of you, from my conversations, are pessimistic. The most common framing of this question or this worry is this: OK. So maybe this isn’t the high moment in the history of the Senate, but isn’t the dysfunction in here merely an echo of the broader political polarization out there? It is an important question. Isn’t the Senate broken merely because of a larger shattered consensus of shared belief across 320 million people in this land? Surely that is part of the story, but there is much more to say.
He also calls his speech a call for more meaningful fighting.
Two weeks ago, in a discussion with one of you about these problems, I was asked: So you are going to admit our institutional brokenness and issue a call for more civility? No. While I am in favor of more civility, my actual call here is for more substance. This is not a call for less fighting. This is a call for more meaningful fighting. This is a call for bringing our A game to the biggest debates about the biggest issues facing our people and with much less regard for 24-month election cycles and 24-hour news cycles. This is a call to be for things that are big enough that you might risk your reelection over.
He continued:
We will not always agree–not all of us, not all of the time. But we should not hide our disagreements. We should embrace them. We have nothing to fear from honest differences honestly stated ….. I believe a greater clarity between us can lead to greater charity among us.
Again, saying that we should be reducing polarization doesn’t mean we should be watering down our convictions. I mean quite the contrary. We do not need fewer conviction politicians around here; we need more. We don’t need more compromising of principles; we need a clearer articulation and understanding of the competing principles so that we can actually make things work better and not merely paper over the deficits of vision that everyone in the country knows exist.
We should be bored by lazy politician speech. We should be bored by knee-jerk certainties on every small issue. We should primarily be doing the harder work of trying to understand competing positions on the larger issues.
Again, saying that we should be reducing polarization doesn’t mean we should be watering down our convictions. I mean quite the contrary. We do not need fewer conviction politicians around here; we need more. We don’t need more compromising of principles; we need a clearer articulation and understanding of the competing principles so that we can actually make things work better and not merely paper over the deficits of vision that everyone in the country knows exist.
We should be bored by lazy politician speech. We should be bored by knee-jerk certainties on every small issue. We should primarily be doing the harder work of trying to understand competing positions on the larger issues.
