|
Author
|
Topic: When We Said Eight, We Meant Twelve (September 2001)
|
Pattie Gillett
True Believer
|
posted 10-10-2001 12:58 AM
   
This month's Public Policy update is now online. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 10-10-2001 12:59 AM
quote:
The solution … is not to limit our ability to choose who we want in those seats, it's to fully use our rights. Term limits are not the answer, a more informed and responsive electorate is.
True enough, and a verbatim version of what I would likely say to someone in favor of term limits. And while anyone should be able to make time to vote – hell, it only takes ten minutes, and it really is the only tangible responsibility a person has to the people around him in a democracy – but I’d be hard-pressed to tell a working single mother of two or a dad who has to work two jobs to make ends meet that they need to spend more time researching their candidates. I’m not saying they can’t; I’m just saying that some of us have fewer domestic obligations getting in the way of our democratic obligations than others. Maybe all that money Pattie mentioned could be used to find a way to address this. Also, I would imagine that part of creating a more informed and responsive electorate would be instituting some sort of campaign finance reform; in other words, I’d imagine that a lot of the “career politician” ills cited by term limit supporters could be solved by making the playing field a bit more financially even, rather than limiting the amount of time a person could serve his or her country in a legislative mode. The notion of the worthiness of seasoned politicians destroys an argument for term limits about as much as the notion of perk-loving, salary-raising career politicians strengthens it. I lived in central Pennsylvania, the home of a pork-fed, (allegedly) gift-accepting congressman who retired and somehow managed to get local Republicans to nominate his son his seat when he retired. So I can understand where the term limit supporters are coming to, to some degree, and the fact that there are some noble, seasoned legislators out there does little to make me forget the fact that Bud Shuster very likely accepted absolute tons of gifts from transportation lobbyists over the years. I think the real answer lies in the quote at the top of this post. The key is in doing it.
|
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 10-10-2001 12:59 AM
I have been complaining about term limits for as long as I can remember. I’m not even sure I’m crazy about the idea of presidents being limited to two terms. But I really hate the idea that someone who’s good at his or her job gets booted out because they’ve been around too long. As much as I admire current Philadelphia mayor John Street, I’d have been thrilled beyond words to vote for Ed Rendell in 1999. But I couldn’t, and I’m not going to whine about it.I am going to whine about the whole message of term limits, that the people can’t be trusted to choose who should represent them. On that principle alone, they seem like a bad idea. But I also question whether they really accomplish what they’re supposed to. They don’t cut down the importance of lobbyists or fundraising – if anything, it makes politicians more reliant on them, even to the point that inexperienced lawmakers and their staffs might find themselves relying more on lobbyists to help them get up to speed on complex issues. And I don’t think they improve the tone of government at all. If anything, they cut down on the interpersonal relationships that help make government run a little less acrimoniously. Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania ride the train together at the end of every week, and use the time to talk over issues and see what common ground can be found. I don’t want to see that get tossed out just because someone thinks Joe or Arlen has been around too long. I really can’t say it any better than Pattie does in her article. If people want term limits because they don’t like the people that the electorate keeps voting for, then they’re missing the point – because odds are the voters will just pick someone similar anyway. It would be so much better to create a more informed electorate, or find a way to reduce the reliance on slogans and gimmicks. It’s hard work, yeah, but it would be worth it. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 03-18-2003 05:47 AM
Couple of thoughts that came to mind while I was rereading this topic:Isn't new Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist one of those guys who promised to only serve a limited number of terms? I wonder how that promise will affect his ability to function in his new post. Thinking of the term limits on presidents, it's kind of amazing to me how rarely that's been an issue. Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton are the only presidents since FDR to serve two full terms. Kind of amazing that incumbency wouldn't be a more powerful force with regard to the most powerful office in the country. Or maybe it's those stakes that motivates a segment of the electorate to take the choice seriously enough that they can toss out someone who they think is doing a poor job. | |
This Is Not News Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
