How about it? 12 years and out, whether you are a senator or a representative.
Personally, I would take a blind draw out of the telephone book-- a random sample of the electorate-- rather than the the collection of goofballs, perverts, thieves, and egomaniacs we currently have in office. And I am willing to take that blind draw knowing full well that Republicans are a minority party (I don't believe Conservatives are, however. It is, after all, a center-right country!).
Please go ahead and tell me all about the problems with term limits, but then please compare those problems to the totally dysfunctional body in place today.
Revolution!!!
All the best!
Hags
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Agreed. I actually think more people would run and we would have better choices. I am so tired of both sides.
Guys -
The system is broken and the Filibuster rule is the reason. As topical as this is right now, look at it in a historical perspective. If one party controls both houses and the WH, the onus is on them. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Eventually, this will help Republicans govern as well. Our system will work better than it has in 40 years. The system has been radically abused of late by both parties.
If an agreement can be reached to wait until 2011 to effect a change in the rule, that is fine by me. That way, Republicans will have a way to obstruct the Democratic agenda the old fashioned way - at the ballot box.
What is wrong with term limits? A lot. At the state level, it has been widely viewed as a failure as it stocks the legislatures with amateurs and leaves the business of governance to staff and lobbyists.
It removes power from officeholders during their last allowed term. We see what lame duck status does to presidents - there hasn't been a very successful second term since the constitution was changed prohibiting a third. Our pols ought to at least have the threat of continued relevance to move their agenda down the field.
It is undemocratic - it ties the hands of the electorate. If we want John Doe to represent us, shouldn't he be able to? Would the House be a better place without Mike Pence? Not if you are a Republican. Term limits would further damage the caliber of the players we have in Washington. We cannot afford to take skilled and seasoned public servants off the field.
Finally - we need redistricting reform, which will be impossible to get through a Congress composed primarily of representatives from safe districts. This is being done at the state level and should be encouraged. I would like to see a national model that could be followed by the 50 states. The gerrymandering that creates most of our congressional districts disenfranchises over 60% of the electorate. Again - both parties are guilty here in equal amounts.
I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Bax,
I'm surprised by your establishmentarian response. I am also surprised that you see the filibuster as the root of all the ills of the Federal government.
McCain and Feingold would, I believe, tell you the problem is money. I don go there, personally. I think the problem is mostly in the nature of the people who currently seek Federal office. Generalizations are necessarily unfair, but, as a group, I see them as power hungry, greedy, and stunningly egotistical. Wayne Hays, John Edwards, it is a long, long list.
How many times have you been in a discussion where someone said, "Who would run for public office?" Politicians are creepy people.
Career politicians are, in my opinion, inherently flawed because politics is there career. We would be so much better off if "normal" people with real careers and lives put down their tools, went to Washington for a while, and then came home.
I would also strip the pension down to a modest sum. Let public service be public service. Pay them while they are there, but don't make the goal re-election and self-aggrandizement. And I don't think we are going to argue over the fact that re-election is THE GOAL as the system is now.
Change is needed.
Enjoy the day!
Hags
Hags -
Its funny - you are clearly a very bright guy and are not typical of the Republican base. Sometimes I think we could agree on more than 50% of the issues if you could just drop the knee jerk partisanship (you are obviously a team player and yours is the GOP). But, maybe I am wrong. Perhaps, we have deep philosophical differences.
I think that the vast majority of politicians on both sides mean well and are choosing the path of public service for noble reasons. I think nearly all of House members would do much better financially in the private sector. Most Senators are rich, so it just doesn't matter. All of them would live far more comfortable lives not having to answer to the American electorate.
I don't think they are creepy, though I certainly agree that they are highly egotistical. They'd have to be. Most of them are overachievers and in fact, have been getting patted on the back since they were small children.
I am not in favor of amateur politicians per se. I like a highly intelligent, experienced, mature political class. Making laws is a complex process and I do not want a legislature full of freshman and sophomores. If you go back for 100 years, you will find the most thoughtful and effective politicians on both sides had been around awhile. Its like anything else. Do you want an intern to handle your heart surgery or a guy with at least 12 years experience?
We agree that money is a major problem now - a problem that can be largely solved through public financing. I also agree that reelection is the primary goal. It is human nature - no one wants to face the humiliation of losing in as public a process as one can imagine. Rejection sucks. Its got to be a lot worse on the front page of the paper for all to see including one's kids (their schoolmates) and everyone else they will come in daily contact with. I don't think this will change with amateur pols- in fact, it could be worse.
Hags; I'm absolutely with you on term limits. Have at it.
Post a Comment