Not just yet: But let's not get too eager about Abramoff's conversion on the road to Damascus.
The culture of corruption is entrenched, and not just because of one man. As long as our system is set up to favor incumbency and special interests, there will always be another Abramoff.
What's so frustrating to me is that small, piecemeal reforms which could save us are being rejected out of hand. For example, why do we not have term limits on the Congress? What possible argument could there be for allowing the perpetual incumbecy of one person?
I know - indeed, I can already hear the calls - "well, they keep winning, and the voters have that right." Of course they keep winning! How could they not win when they create districts to their own advantage?
The current system - that is, terms without end - is the antithesis of republican government. If that is our pleasure, let us freely admit it, then: the Republic is a screen and a sham.
The culture of corruption is entrenched, and not just because of one man. As long as our system is set up to favor incumbency and special interests, there will always be another Abramoff.
What's so frustrating to me is that small, piecemeal reforms which could save us are being rejected out of hand. For example, why do we not have term limits on the Congress? What possible argument could there be for allowing the perpetual incumbecy of one person?
I know - indeed, I can already hear the calls - "well, they keep winning, and the voters have that right." Of course they keep winning! How could they not win when they create districts to their own advantage?
The current system - that is, terms without end - is the antithesis of republican government. If that is our pleasure, let us freely admit it, then: the Republic is a screen and a sham.
posted by Joshua @ 10:44 PM
12 Comments:
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it could be argued that a certain amount of institutional experience and memory is important in a body like the Senate or the House. While it is true that many congressmen are able to cling to their office long after they have proven to be incompetent or worse, there are also some who mature and become better with age, experience, and clout. Perhaps some changes in the rules of the House and Senate with regards to the way chairmanships are handed out by seniority is in order.
Personally I think that a reform of the committee rules AND term limits would be useful. But speaking of term limits, what do you all think would be appropriate? I've heard 12 years for Representatives and 18 for Senators tossed around. Seems fair to me that if you can't get something done in 18 years, it is surely time to go.
I say twelve (12) years for each. Two terms as senator and six terms as representative. Or, if you want to go all Commons-Lords on me, we can have a longer limit for the Senate, like 18 or (maybe) 24.
I'm amenable to the Senate rules being different because the Senate, by definition, cannot be redistricted and therefore rigged.
But the House? Come on!
Speaking of redistricting, what would be the best way to force a non-partisan, rational redistricting system on the House? It seems to me that the failures of the current system of are plain and abundant. Yet the very people who are in charge of changing the laws (ie. the Representatives) are the very ones (and ONLY ones, beside the interest groups who agree with their lunacy) who are benefit from the incumbent system. If this is not the sort of thing for which the Federal Constitution was made amendable, then I don't know what is. Perhaps we could do it the old school way and get the state legislatures to team up and bring the amendment up. Term limits would be nice, but priority wise, and given the Herculean effort, time, and political capital required for something like that, I would go with redistricting first. Once you have saner, more reasonable people in the House, it will be easier to suggest other rational reforms.
To play the Devil's Advocate:
Once you have saner, more reasonable people in the House, they could say "we're saner and more reasonable... let's not limit our terms, lest the villains come back."
I once had an argument with a roommate who was calling for the old classical system of representation by lottery. While this is certainly the most egalitarian method, it is also the least stable, least focused, most prone to reactionism, and most prone to foolishness. The bigger flaw in that argument (which I know is NOT what tacitean is calling for here, but it's relevent) is that it assumes that governance takes neither knowledge nor skill. There's a reason freshman congressmen and senators weild so little power - and not because they come in, gun's blazing, to a chamber full of old codgers. It's because they don't know what they're doing yet, don't understand the compromise and diplomacy needed to get things done, and don't know the little bits of protocal and legal minutia needed to press their plans through.
It's one thing to say that incumbency breeds corruption - so do term limits; it's simply the nature of power - but VERY contrary to say that incumbency is against the ideals of a republic, particularly when we're discussing a democratic republic, which guarantees it's citizens the right to choose their own representatives. However much of a joke Ted Kennedy might be accross the country, the people of Massachusettes have made it perfectly clear that they would have no one else in that seat. I don't know if anyone commenting on this post lives and votes 9in Massachusettes, but for those of us writing from New Hampshire and New York, dictating to other voters that they can't choose the representative of their choice is the antithesis of a republican government. Term limits only serve to further use federal legislation to separate the people from the powers that be.
While I am flattered that my ideas have earned the name 'VERY contrary,' I still think my proposal is within the bounds of good common sense.
Since Dawson has most recently offered comments, I will discuss those in turn.
1) As you note, I am not advocating any sort of government by lot, but let us pretend this was my aim.
Pace Dawson:
"The bigger flaw in that argument... is that it assumes that governance takes neither knowledge nor skill."
I don't think that's the assumption of 'government by lot' in the least. The assumption is that yes, it takes knowledge and skill, but every citizen is capable of obtaining these arts. Is that not what we are saying when we select jury pools by lot?
Now, if we say that the uneducated layman is competent to decide matters of life and death - which is what 'jury by lot' is saying - can we not agree that this same uneducated layman is competent to make law?
Moving forward, let us grant for argument's sake that being a congressman is somewhat harder than being on a jury. Let us assume it takes at least two years to get the basic routine down. No, let's assume it takes four years! That's still only two terms for a representative and two-thirds of a term for a senator, both well within my proposed limits of 12 and 18 years. This should give more than enough time for anyone to learn the necessary skills and represent their constituents' interests. If they are so woefully bad at it, well, let's just vote in a new person.
2) Ah yes, 'the right of citizens to choose their representatives.' At no point do I refute that essential right, and I certainly don't think term limits constitutes New Hampshire or New York telling Massachusetts what they can do.
Why not? Because as a U.S. Senator, Ted Kennedy holds a FEDERAL office. The federal government - that is, the collective will of the states in joint matters - has already decided the boundaries of each state's individual representation.
For example, the U.S. Constitution states that representatives must be 25 years of age and senators must be 30 years of age. To be a member of the federal Legislature, one must be the proper age.
This, if we're being strict, is a means of preventing the people from choosing their representatives. But we don't want 15 year-olds for senators, so we have that restriction.
Term limits would be just another jointly agreed upon limit in the same manner: we will have decided that it is preferable to rotate the offices.
This is only 'telling Massachusetts whom it can elect' in the sense that its federal representatives must adhere to this rule to be a part of the federal scheme. On the other hand, if Massachusetts wants to elect a governor for life, by all means, go ahead, I say!
The reason I am so passionate for term limits - and have been, regardless of who rules the federal roost - is that it confirms by legal order what our republican hearts tell us to be true: no one is indispensable. This is what I meant by saying that perpetual incumbency is contrary to the spirit of a Republic. Perpetual incumbency would have us believe that if THIS or THAT person is not in an elective office, somehow we cannot go on. Whatever you wish to call that sentiment, it's not a Republic.
"Politics is the slow boring of hard wood, and anyone who partkes of it risk their own soul." Change takes forever - just lok at the civil rights movement - and the people who are both willing to spend their lives on the unpopular, but in the long term important issues, and are also skilled anough to see them through are few and far between. They aren't all fit to be juriststs when their terms expire, and the great ones, the ones we need, are hopefully to dignified to choose a lobbyists life. Most Senators and representatives aren't going to be greats. They'll be porkbarrel politicians looking for their own self promotion through committee structure, or worse, they'll be the Tom DeLay's of the world, looking for their next handout or the chance to bully the opposition into irrellevence. That's what makes the great statesmen great: that they aren't the ordinary carpetbaggers. I see your viewpoint, particularly in the current state of affairs, though basic human corruption never changes. My problem with it is that true, worthwhile change takes a lifetime or more, not a term or two, and to stifle that incumbancy not only keeps voters to stay with a representative they trust, but keeps those once-in-a-lifetime greats from doing what no noe else can. They may be the exception to the rule, but they're also the ones who make the difference in the long run. I feel that to throw the baby out with the bathwater here exemplifies both contempt for the voters, but also to what government can do at its best, which is the only reason we have government in the first place.
We seem to be trying to balance two opposing concerns here. First is the acknowledgement that people are a generally flawed lot and that even the best of us is chock full of various weaknesses. From this flows the idea that human institutions (where they can be) should be designed to mitigate these weaknesses. This does not assume that every person to participate in a given institution (say, government) will succumb to the flaws that make various protections and limitations necessary. It does, however, suggest that even the possibility of certain excess (ie. tyranny) is worth having these limits. Weighed against this is, as Dawson mentioned, the fact that some individuals evade the pitfalls of power extraordinarily well and are able to pursue necessary and lasting goals. However, achieving those goals often takes a lifetime or more and so putting a limit on the time an individual can serve might rob us of some of our best, wisest, and noblest, just as they are achieving the experience and ability to accomplish what they set out to do.
In defense of this latter view, I would say that the current system allows certain Senators and Representatives to become relatively secure in their reelection which in turn gives them the opportunity to devote more of their focus to their actual job of legislating and less to the tedium of campaigning. Also, in the same way that it is argued that long time incumbents are out of touch with their representatives because they are secure in reelection, it could be argued that congressmen approaching their limit would, rather than gaining influence with time, lose it as they approached mandated retirement.
Limitless terms however, while enabling the best to do their work as long as they are able, also allow the worst to cling to power. Think of Jesse Helms, Ted Stevens, or Ted Kennedy. All of them should probably have gone the way of the Dodo a while back, but popularity for reasons unrelated to their actual competence or fitness to legislate have kept them on (and for some will keep them on) until the feel like quitting. In short, fewer structural boundaries on people's involvement in public office offers a wider spread of possibility and a greater degree of uncertainty. A monarchy is a fantastic form of government under a good king. Limiting terms on the other hand, cuts off the extremes at both ends. Perhaps it boils down to one's faith in people's ability to wield power responsibly, but I think that many more negative excesses would be prevented by such limits than would be virtuosic lifetime displays of statesmanship enabled by their absence. Also, After 18 years in the Senate, there is no reason why such a civic paragon cannot continue to serve his country in another capacity, perhaps as President, perhaps in cabinet position.
Also, I agree completely with the right honorable Dawson that most important political changes (positive ones anyway, it seems that things can go to crap with much greater rapidity, but I guess a kind of entropy applies even to human social structures)take a lifetime or more to be realized. However, I also believe that not single life is ever anywhere near sufficient to bring about this change. All of the great steps forward (women's suffrage, civil rights etc) were catalyzed by singular figures, but required those persons to work with, convince, and inspire many, many more talented and committed people. The work of MLK did not die with him precisely because he worked so hard to inspire, educate, and energize so many other people to work for his dream. Thus, I feel that limiting the terms of Senators and Representatives might actually encourage the positive reformers among them to work hard on bringing others on board that their movements might be carried on long after their tenure. And again, as I previously mentioned, these individuals could continue to fight for their causes in any number of other offices and capacities, public and private, after their final term is up.
One final note: Knowing that one has only a certain maximum amount of time would force representatives to think in terms of building consensus. Convincing others and grooming junior members who share your goals would be necessary in a system where no one made it past 18 (or 12) years. Furthermore, with the knowledge that a certain amount of turnover was mandated by the system, bright and civic minded people, who might otherwise have thought involvement in politics to be hopeless, would see more a chance to make their mark without having to undergo quite so thorough a vitiation of their principals while kowtowing to the party elders.
Just so you know: I'm going to be doing an editorial on this same thing for the Courier which I will post at the earliest availability.
And in doing so, we disenfranchise Massachusetts and Sounth Carloina (until recently, anyway) by not allowing them to ellect those who may best bring home the bacon for them. Term Limits are the Harrison Bergeron solution, and if there are so many talented politicians out there, those of us in states without their own senatorial empires should elect a few of them to grab a piece for ourselves. That's what the senate is for, for god's sake. States using political clout to take what they can.
With all due respect, that isn't the purpose of the Senate.
The Senate's job is to advise the President (more or less) on foreign policy and personnel appointments to the executive departments.
But since the Senate has become a tenured position, senators have decided to focus on bacon to the detriment of its true duties and to the benefit of the executive branch. Is anyone happy with the results?
From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Vent: Remember about 12 years ago during their “Contract on America” phase, when Republicans vowed they’d only serve three terms in the House? Whatever happened to term limits?
Post a Comment
<< Home