I originally wrote a longer version of this post on the night before the election but learned, to my chagrin, that in future I should write my posts in 'Word' and paste here, because sometimes, when you hit 'publish,' it doesn't get published at all, but simply disappears forever into cyberspace....
With the enthusiasm of the former history teacher that I am, I talked a bit about the genius and dedication of those who wrote our Constitution. What an amazing accomplishment it was to come up with the necessary compromises and produce a framework for government that not only still works--220+ years later in a thoroughly changed world--but works remarkably well.
I commented that one of its few flaws (at least in that changed world) is the lack of a provision for term limits for members of Congress. No doubt, when John Adams and others of our founders were slogging through mud and cold on horseback for days on end to reach New York or Philadelphia, they didn't imagine that anyone would choose to do that forever. They couldn't possibly imagine the day when a Speaker of the House would be soaking the taxpayers for millions of dollars to fly her around on a private jet, when members of Congress would be abusing the franking privilege to mail re-election propaganda, and the perks and benefits of elected office were so great that those in those offices would do practically anything to stay.
Or, and this is where my money is, perhaps what they never envisioned was an American electorate so stupid, selfish, or disengaged that they would return people like that to office over and over.
Whichever it was, we need term limits for Congress, and herein lies the flaw. Amending the Constitution requires 2/3 of Congress to propose the amendment (followed by 3/4 of the state legislatures ratifying it.) Congress did this, of course, to limit the President's time in office (22nd amendment) but what are the chances we'll get 357 of these clowns to vote themselves away from the trough?
Which is why I bring up the Tea Party. There is much speculation, by supporters and detractors, about whether this movement has been a 'flash in the pan,' a la the Reform Party, or whether it's here to stay as a force in American politics. Much derision has been directed at this movement, some of it justified, more of it snobbery of the worst kind.
I suggest that an effort for these individuals, which would benefit the entire country (except those porkers at the aforementioned trough) and establish the movement as one with staying power and organizational chops, would be to lead the charge for Congressional term limits with an end run around Congress. The Constitution provides another pathway to amendment, although it's one that's never been used.
3/4 of state conventions can propose an amendment, with ratification following the same route--3/4 of the state legislatures. Congress would fight what they would no doubt consider a 'usurpation' of their power, probably by exploiting the non-specificity of the term 'convention,' but that's the beauty of the Constitution--it isn't solely their power. Our founders, with their incredible prescience, envisioned a time when the people's representatives would refuse to do their will, and provided a way to counter that intransigence.
Term limits: good! Parroting misinformation: bad. See http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_nancy_pelosi_order_up_a_200-seat.html or http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp regarding your suggestion that Pelosi is "soaking the taxpayers for millions of dollars to fly her around on a private jet".
ReplyDeleteI feel your anger. I think it's misplaced.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the founders never envisioned "an American electorate so stupid, selfish, or disengaged" as we seem to now have, when they restricted the franchise to property-owning white males. But we changed that over the years because we felt it was the right thing to do, a good change. Why now propose throwing out the baby with the bathwater? If the document has worked through all the changes in society over the past 200+ years, perhaps we should focus on reforms that reduce the incentives to plunder, like full disclosure of campaign contributions, strengthening of "anti-revolving-door" provisions, or even restrictions (gasp) on political contributions. Term limits would, in my opinion, increase rather than decrease the influence of lobbyists, because it would make it harder for members to acquire the expertise needed to deliberate on complex issues.
So far as "the people's representatives refusing to do their will," that sounds like Tea Party rhetoric to me. In the last two years, Congress has done more to satisfy MY will than the previous eight years.
We already have term limits; we call them elections. The swing voters (the folks who aren't sure precisely what they want, but they know they want it now) have spoken. But if Senator McConnell feels that "making Barack Obama a one-term president" is a higher priority than getting us out of the economic hole we're in, or trying to avoid the conditions that would make for another financial crisis, heaven help us. Term limits won't eliminate an attitude like that.
To 'Anonymous,'
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected to the extent that I was sloppy in my phrasing (you'll notice I remarked that I had previously written a much longer version of this; I was trying to condense, and didn't do a good job on this particular point). I am and was aware that the rumors, in their full-blown form, were not true about the controversy, however, Snopes, which you cite, has ceased to be my 'bible' when it comes to politics and this is a good illustration of why.
The only nod Snopes makes toward the fact that there was indeed some 'real' controversy, is to say the rumor was 'mostly' false, then fail to explain the 'mostly.' Besides the fact that there was some justification for the suspicion she was using some of those additional 38 seats to fly political supporters/contributors, there was this:
"On March 11, 2009, Newsmax reported that "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been treating the United States Air Force as her personal airline, blocking out multiple flights, issuing last minute cancellations after planes and crew are prepped and ready, and expressing outrage when the military aircraft weren’t available."
The article said it was "based on Air Force documents obtained by Judicial Watch, the nonprofit organization that exposes government waste and corruption." It also said that the Speaker made some requests for travel for her and her husband that were in conflict to Department of Defense guidelines and when denied accommodations on some occasions her staff seemed not to take no for answer."
(That was from a different fact-checking site, but the link was broken.)
It is the attitude that is egregious, as well as the money, speaking of which, even though it's true that the larger aircraft was recommended for security, my understanding is that Ms. Pelosi basically worked 3 days a week and rather than stay in DC, she flew back and forth. It's that idea of largesse, when it comes to the public money, that would horrify our founders.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that suggesting term limits for members of Congress constitutes "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." If the President, who does not actually have the power of the pursestrings in the way Congress does, should be limited to 8 (10 if necessary) years, why not them?
I agree that one drawback to term limits would be that it takes time for members to become experienced and knowledgeable about complex issues. But too often, that experience gets directed more to playing party politics than it does to solving problems. We wouldn't be in the mess we're in now, if that weren't the case, with the offenders filling both sides of the aisle.
As to my comment being 'Tea Party rhetoric,' I don't know. I'm not a TP'er and have never been to a rally; I think it's just extremely clear that Congress has _not_ been doing the will of the people. If they had been, dozens of them would still be there. They may have been doing _your_ will, but poll after poll indicates that only 20% of people self-identify as liberal.
I agree about McConnell's comments and term limits not changing attitudes like that, but disagree with your blanket description of swing voters. Some of them may be that, but others are not ideologically hidebound, like many on the right and the left; they gave Obama a chance and weren't happy with the results, and let him know. That's a good thing, in my opinion.
I have another comment, but as these threads get long, I will probably make it a post.
Thanks for the feedback.
P.S. Regarding my initial comment above, I don't mean to suggest members of Congress should be restricted to 8 or 10 years. I just meant that if the President is limited, why not them, too.
ReplyDeleteAt least superficially, term limits sound like a good idea, but I'm not sure they would solve the problems you cite. Term limits could put a dent in abuses, but I can't imagine they would stop them. Also, there's the question of whether it makes sense to force out the most experienced and bring in inexperienced replacements, especially given the far greater complexity of both government offices and the society as a whole relative to the time of the framers.
ReplyDeleteBottom line, I think there are costs and benefits to either system, and the consequences of changing the system are bound to introduce both. Given that many (most? all?) politicians are only elected to begin with because they are so skilled at gaming the system, who can say whether term limits would make any difference at all?
I'm not sure I buy the idea that we need to keep members in Congress longer so they can acquire the expertise needed for complex issues. The Health Care bill was pretty complex. How many politicians even read it? Besides, I think a lot of "complex" issues are that way because the government makes them that way.
ReplyDeleteSomeone wrote "So far as "the people's representatives refusing to do their will," that sounds like Tea Party rhetoric to me. In the last two years, Congress has done more to satisfy MY will than the previous eight years".
I don't think that's rhetoric at all, and frankly, saying that it's Tea Party rhetoric is an obvious liberal talking point. Also, as Peggy pointed out, this person's will is in the minority. This has been a very unpopular Congress across the board. Obama didn't win because the majority of Americans agree with his politics.
How the Tea Party as an organization will pan out remains to be seen, but my guess is that their political beliefs represent far more Americans than many realize - much to the dismay of Democrats and Republicans. If they get much more traction, we will continue to find new faces in Congress with or without term limits.
To Barry,
ReplyDeleteAs to whether term limits would make any difference, it's a fair question, and I guess the answer is that indeed, no one can say for sure. But when the percentage of the public that approves of Congress' job performance hovers in the teens, and when repeated polls show that the percentage of those who favor term limits for members of Congress ranges between the high 70s and the low 80s, it's time to push for it.
I agree with you that there would be costs to imposing term limits--among them the loss of some people who would continue to be effective if they could stay, but those costs would be more compelling if we had a lawmaking body in which the majority of members were acquitting themselves in a manner that inspired the admiration and confidence of the citizens. Obviously, that's not the case.
As to the wisdom of replacing experienced members with inexperienced ones, given the complexity of issues they consider, I think Cory's first paragraph addresses that pretty effectively. Additionally, I think we make a serious mistake if we decide that since it was a simpler world 225 years ago, the people in it were simpler. Our founders, as a group, surpass virtually all of their contemporary counterparts in terms of intellect and education, and there was a reason they envisioned a 'citizen republic.' They knew the dangers of having a permanent, political ruling class, which, even though it's 'de facto,' is pretty much what we have now.