Saturday, September 16, 2006

Term Limits

The Congress of the United States should be subjected to term limits!

There, I've said it -- out loud.

Why would I embrace an idea I've been arguing against my whole life? Shouldn't the people of this great country be allowed to hire whoever they want to represent them?

Let me think...

When we combine voter apathy with gerrymandered districts and incumbant protection rules, it becomes difficult to embrace any other solution. Longevity in office breeds power; and with it, slinking along in the shadows, corruption.

Most of those in positions of seniority in both the House and Senate have been there for 20+ years. Our founding fathers would turn over in their graves at this notion. As stated in Federalist 52: "As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured".

What Madison and Hamilton meant here, is that the House of Representatives would be more at the mercy of the people with short terms. This lends itself to the idea that the elected would be seeking re-election more often; and therefore would need to please the represented. This however, is written within the context of the House being the only generally elected body of the legislature, and before rules that have created a huge advantage for the officeholder.

If Mssr.s Hamilton and Madison got a good look into the future; at the rules and policies which now affect member's selection; they would be aghast. Strong incumbent perks, advertising budgets, and party money make it almost impossible for the average concerned citizen to have a shot.

These factors put the framer's idea of participatory government in jeapardy. Since it is highly unlikely that the members themselves will change the rules to nullify their competitive advantage; I see no other option than term limits. Pressure, through grassroots campaigns and petitions, on the legislatures, might force reform. Either way, we win. A reformed or term-limited system is certeinly more desireable then the current system.

No comments: