Senatorial Misconduct

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fa_fact_packer?currentPage=all This is an excellent New Yorker article on my favorite governmental institution, the US Senate. Though it has a bitterly partisan history, full of duels, beatings administered with canes, and ugly arguments over slavery, the body for most of its history has been made up of genteel white males who all got along at the end of the debate. Today, the Senate is made up of genteel white males who mostly despise each other it seems, especially illustrated by some of the anecdotes in this piece. What has changed? The thesis statement here is "Money and special interests have a corrosive effect on a free exchange of ideas and eventual compromise". But there have always been special interests at work in this country. Fundraising has taken on a new importance with massive TV ad buys and political parties hungry for more dollars, true, but I think that what's changed is alcohol. Drinking on the job. As an avid fan of Mad Men, everyone gets along much better after a three martini lunch. In fact, some characters barely tolerate others without a round of scotch. Back in the 19th and early 20th century, except for that brief period of Prohibition, Senators were probably regularly drunk on the job, never mind nights and weekends. This NYer article mentions lunch as a good bonding experience, what about sake bombs? Or a weekly round of beer pong, partnering up each state's Senators in a tournament? I think this would inspire comity and a feeling of "we're all in this together" more than any speech about bipartisanship.