The U.S. Senate in Disarray: Founding Principles or Mismanagement?

Herding cats. This expression typically is used to describe two arcane artifacts of
human organization: academic faculties and the U.S. Senate. In the latter case, the
operational difficulty stems at least in part from the principles on which the
legislative chamber is based. More particularly, the senators represent semisovereign polities rather than individuals, and governmental autonomy, however
slight that may be, translates into senate mechanisms such as the filibuster as well
as the related super-majority needed to end such a debate, and the power that a
single senator has to object to a unanimous-consent request made on the Senate
floor. In May 2015, Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, found himself mired in
both mechanisms as he sought to end debate on whether to give the Pacific trade
deal (TPP) fast-track (i.e., no amendments) treatment, and then to extend the
Patriot Act. Whereas The New York Times points to McConnells failure to live up to
his promise to take the Senate back to its committee process and away from
passing legislation by senate leaders making deals such as by horse-trading, I
contend that more utility lies in examining how the Senates basic principles
contribute to the dysfunction.1
The full essay is at E.U. & U.S.

1 Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman, N.S.A. and Other Matters Leave
McConnells Senate in Disarray, The New York Times, May 23, 2015.