The Senate, immediately after voting to approve legislation governing the interrogation and overall treatment of terrorism suspects, voted on new legislation that would compel it to interrogate itself about why nearly every member’s speechifying has been directed, not so much at the nation’s problems, but at the November voter.

The body very politic had good cause to approve the controversial legislation. While a dozen Democrats crossed party lines to support the legislation regarding the treatment of terrorists, the members indulged in speeches with transparently political agendas, such as Senator John Kerry, who voted for the invasion of Iraq, doing his credible worst against George Bush, saying “After four years, the price we are paying is clear for saying to a president and an administration that we would trust you.”

Or Hillary Clinton’s disingenuous, “I fear that there are those who place a strategy for winning elections ahead of a smart strategy for winning the war on terror.”

And from the Republican side, commenting on Democratic naysayers, Senator John Cornyn of Texas stated, with a not entirely sly allusion to electoral considerations, “It is a kind of difficult vote to explain, at least where I come from.”

Meanwhile, The House of Representatives showed some inclination to its own self-interrogation. Reasons abounded. For instance, immediately after the House voted against the terrorist legislation, Speaker Dennis Hastert went after the Democrats who had voted against it like a rabid St. Bernard.

There were also indications from President Bush that the self-interrogation ought to reach as far as the White House. Even before the Senate vote, he maintained his usual sense of what is inarguably the Republican election tactic, noting, “We must give our professionals the tools necessary to protect the American people in this war on terror, and those in the House of Representatives were wrong to vote against this bill.”

Self-interrogation, regardless of how pervasive it becomes, is expected to reveal that lawmakers are so obsessed with the looming elections that nearly their every word and act are employed with an eye toward electoral longevity and triumph, instead of clearly focused on the less compelling topic of what is right for the country.

Maybe it’s a survival instinct. Given the shaky opportunism of the Democrats and the defensive bluster of the Republicans, prospects for electoral survival are at a point that would command a great deal of agonized attention.