Ben Sasse Wasn’t Meant for the Senate

Bobby Miller’s piece this morning, “In Defense of Ben Sasse,” takes issue with the numerous “conservatives across the spectrum” who argued that “the soon-to-be-former senator from Nebraska wasted his time in office.” Sasse, Miller writes, “is genuinely interested in ideas. Unlike national conservatives, who prioritize stoking grievances over advancing a concrete agenda,” the Tocqueville-quoting Nebraskan “has shown a genuine interest in applying conservative principles to address the problems of the 21st century.” Concrete examples of that “genuine interest,” however, are few and far between: Sasse published two books during his time in office and was a regular on the conservative-wonk podcast and speaking circuit, but his numerous “ideas” and “conservative principles” rarely made their way into actual legislation — ostensibly what the good people of Nebraska had elected him to do.

Sasse is undoubtedly a smart, eloquent man. I bought and read both of his books, and, for a time, at least, was charmed by his self-styled public image as a wonky, self-effacing political-theory nerd. But it’s not entirely clear how the senator, who was routinely rated as among the least-effective lawmakers in the world’s greatest deliberative body, is an aspirational example of “advancing a concrete agenda.” Pace Miller, the Center for Effective Lawmaking, which gives a “Legislative Effectiveness Score” to members of Congress, rated Sasse as the third-least effective Senate Republican in the 114th Congress, the fourth-least effective in the 115th, and the third-least effective in the 116th. In contrast, Josh Hawley, an embodiment of the national-conservative wing of the GOP that ostensibly prioritizes “stoking grievances over advancing a concrete agenda,” was rated as the 26th-most effective member of the Senate GOP during the 116th Congress, having introduced nearly four times the number of substantive bills as did Sasse during the last legislative session.

About the Author

Nate Hochman

Nate Hochman was a staff writer at National Review.

Featured Tags

Bobby Miller’s piece this morning, “In Defense of Ben Sasse,” takes issue with the numerous “conservatives across the spectrum” who argued that “the soon-to-be-former senator from Nebraska wasted his time in office.” Sasse, Miller writes, “is genuinely interested in ideas. Unlike national conservatives, who prioritize stoking grievances over advancing a concrete agenda,” the Tocqueville-quoting Nebraskan “has shown a genuine interest in applying conservative principles to address the problems of the 21st century.” Concrete examples of that “genuine interest,” however, are few and far between: Sasse published two books during his time in office and was a regular on the conservative-wonk podcast and speaking circuit, but his numerous “ideas” and “conservative principles” rarely made their way into actual legislation — ostensibly what the good people of Nebraska had elected him to do.

Sasse is undoubtedly a smart, eloquent man. I bought and read both of his books, and, for a time, at least, was charmed by his self-styled public image as a wonky, self-effacing political-theory nerd. But it’s not entirely clear how the senator, who was routinely rated as among the least-effective lawmakers in the world’s greatest deliberative body, is an aspirational example of “advancing a concrete agenda.” Pace Miller, the Center for Effective Lawmaking, which gives a “Legislative Effectiveness Score” to members of Congress, rated Sasse as the third-least effective Senate Republican in the 114th Congress, the fourth-least effective in the 115th, and the third-least effective in the 116th. In contrast, Josh Hawley, an embodiment of the national-conservative wing of the GOP that ostensibly prioritizes “stoking grievances over advancing a concrete agenda,” was rated as the 26th-most effective member of the Senate GOP during the 116th Congress, having introduced nearly four times the number of substantive bills as did Sasse during the last legislative session.