The Cost

One, two, three, four, five,six, seven.

That is the number of weeks it took the U.S. Senate to begin to begin to get down to business. Last week the Senate finally managed to organize its committees--and even then the action came over the bitter protest of a band of Senate liberals who had been holding up the works all along.

The Senate's self-proclaimed liberals number about 45, including a few Republicans, and on paper they should comprise the upper chamber's strongest voting bloc, and perhaps even its conscience. But in practice, they are effective only in their ability to mess things up.

Legislative Year 1963 is certainly a case in point. The liberals started off by insisting that the Senate change its rules so as to curb filibusters. Everyone knew that the effort did not have a chance; in the event, it cost a month of talkfest before it was handily defeated. Next, following the lead of President Kennedy, the liberals backed a plan to pack the Finance Committee headed by Virginia's conservative Democrat Harry Byrd. The idea was that a Finance Committee increased by two liberals would help in the passage of Kennedy's tax and medicare programs. Kennedy himself, told he could not win, tried to call his followers off. But the Senate liberals paid no heed, insisted on bringing it to a vote in the Democratic Steering Committee--and they got badly whipped.

The "Establishment." In no instance was the haplessness of the Senate liberals better illustrated than in the crusade of Pennsylvania's Senator Joseph Clark to enlarge (with liberals) not only the Finance Committee but the Appropriations Committee. In three days of debate, Clark charged that Senate committee assignments are decided by a decidedly nonliberal "establishment" of senior Southern and Western Senators. (The idea of an American "establishment"--much broader than the Congress--was first satirically suggested by The New Yorker's Washington correspondent, Richard Rovere. He compared it to Britain's royal family and plutocracy, which are sometimes called "the Establishment.")

The Senate "establishment," cried Clark, is "almost the antithesis of democracy. It is not selected by any democratic process. It appears to be quite unresponsive to the caucuses of the two parties, be they Republican or Democratic. It is what might be called a self-perpetuating oligarchy."

Clark insisted that his attack was by no means meant to be personal. "I honor these men," he said. "They are my friends. They are honest, intelligent, and, from the point of view of representing their states as opposed to the national interest, they are doing a fine job. I wish them long life, continued happiness, material prosperity and spiritual peace--if not re-election."

Clark finally got down to his specific gripes. The Democratic Steering Committee, which makes committee assignments, consists of nine conservatives and only six liberals, he said. Seven of the 15 members are from the South. Likewise, the Senate Finance Committee, he said, reflects the views of the "well-known conservative bipartisan coalition opposed to the President of the U.S." He hinted that the "establishment" had punished Senators who took part in the anti-filibuster fight, claiming that only one of 14 such non-freshman Senators was granted his first choice for committee assignments, while six of eight who opposed the move got theirs.

Dirty Linen. In a Gallagher-Shean routine, Clark and Illinois' Paul Douglas, a senior spokesman among Senate liberals, raked the wicked "establishment." Douglas: "Is it not true that prior to the present steering committee, of the 15 members only one was from any of the twelve states which lie between the Alleghenies and the Rockies?" Clark: "The Senator is correct." Douglas: "I am sorry for the interruption." Clark: "I hope the Senator will listen carefully to what I have to say, and interject if there is anything that he would like to add." Douglas had plenty to add, interjected with a 4,000-word speech of his own.

Even patient Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, who considers himself a liberal, but was obviously being charged with going along with the "establishment," aroused himself to protest: "I had hoped that there would be a certain amount of discretion in any debate ... I really dislike to wash our dirty Democratic linen in public." But Clark pushed doggedly on, insisting on some votes. He got them, losing 68 to 17 on his proposal to enlarge the Finance Committee, 70 to 12 on his plan to pack Appropriations. In the end, all he had cost the Senate was more days of do-nothingness.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.