Didn't get through all of the Packer essay, but it's the third or fourth essay I've read where the author lists all the examples of the losses of collegiality as evidence of the brokenness of the chamber, as if 'bipartisanship' were the primary goal of the Senate rather than a virtue that presumptively leads to the Senate's actual goal, producing good legislation. It's entirely plausible that a contentious Senate leads to better legislation, after all. A lot of the time the nostalgia for the days when Republican and Democratic senators ate together seems like nostalgia for a time when Senators didn't have to work quite so hard.