Jamelle Bouie

One of my handful of regrets about not subscribing to the New York Times is that I don't get to see the columns of Jamelle Bouie. I do see a few of them when they're reprinted locally, and I see some of his thinking on Twitter. But I realize I am very late to the Bouie party overall. 

This short thread from a couple of days ago is indicative of the kind of thing he writes. He was responding to a conversation about the travesty of the U.S. Senate, and the example of 40 million people in California represented by two people, while 40 million people in 23 other states are represented by 46 people. 

Often, we are told, "that's the way it was designed." To that argument, Bouie responded:

a thing i never tire of mentioning is that james madison himself was dismissive of the idea that states have interests as states. the “interests of a state” comprise the interests of the people within it, and their interests are a function of material concerns shared among states

there are rural interests and urban interests and coastal interests and manufacturing interests and trade interests and all the like, each of which is present in every state. the senate would make more logical sense if it actually represented those interests as such.

but the idea that states qua states need representation separate from the people who inhabit them didn’t make a whole lot of sense in 1787 and doesn’t make sense now

an aside: the wild thing about madison’s take is he made note of the fact that the real dividing line among the states was the extent of and depth of slavery and that this made more sense for structuring the senate than equal state representation (he wanted it by population)

and to some extent, this is what basically happened. the missouri compromise ends up turning the senate into a chamber that explicitly recognizes slavery as the core interest that divides the states and is thus entitled to equal representation

Anyway — I'm a big fan, Jamelle!