Click here if you are not using Microsoft's
defective Windows Explorer browser. Why?
Posted December 10, 2004
Virginia's governor works under an odd limit: one term. This seems kind of excessive. The norm, established by America's first president, George Washington, is to limit government service to two terms. The idea of some limit on service, of course, is a very good thing. It helps offset the tendency of governments to become class systems, with the ruling elite ruling forever and the people forever mis-ruled.
It's interesting to read the current debate in Virginia, where a lot of people would like to loosen up the limit. Though most anti-term limit writing in America these days — which hails mostly from pro-incumbent legislator forces — is utterly whacko, a few good ideas do occasionally surface. Here's one from an editorial in The Daily Cavalier:
The contention over whether or not the term limit is a reasonable provision comes down to the balance of power between the legislature and the governor. Opponents of changing the law argue that doing so would greatly shift the weight of governance in favor of the executive. In actuality, though, governors are currently provided with a nearly unbounded — albeit abbreviated in years — opportunity to be unaccountable to anyone. Without having to worry about running for reelection, they can burn all the bridges they want over the course of their term without any real check.
You do not want a lame duck running wild.
So what to do?
Why not something original? Here we go: Keep the limit to one four-year term. But then add a provision to allow a one-issue plebiscite: After three years of gubernatorial service, the state's electors would vote to add two years to that term. If a super-majority votes to keep in the incumbent, to allow him or her to really put a new agenda into place, then extend the term to six years. There need be no talk of opponents. But the vote for term extension has to be a super-majority, say 70 percent. If a super-majority can't be mustered, then the next year an election between two non-incumbents would proceed as normal.
This strikes me as exactly the kind of solution that meets all objections. Except, perhaps, to those who simply want to yield more power. Can't please everybody.
The Daily Cavalier's editorial, however, doesn't present a pristine argument. Though in school we are instructed to end with our best argument, in politics this often means concluding with the least intellectually respectable argument
; emotional, pandering, condescending arguments based on a distorted view of reality. And boy, did The Daily Cavalier come up with a whopper:
But the shift in power that ideally should resonate the most with lawmakers is the greater influence that would be afforded to voters. In a sense, term limits indicate a paternalistic attitude on behalf of the government that the people cannot choose well for themselves. Changing the term limit will make the governor more accountable to his constituents, and no one, particularly those weary of a domineering executive, should be against that.
Let's list the nonsense in this passage:
Journalists and politicians both make least sense when trying to deal with the issue of incumbency. Why? They like it. Voters are a bit more leery of it, even when they vote over and over again for incumbents. Which is why — as I argued when term limits first became an isuee — voters find it sensible to limit their own options. They don't like being tempted by something dangerous, an incumbent politician. They don't like getting caught up in the ratcheting aspect of government growth. And so they tend to suppport term limits. That's why they support term limits, when given the option, even though they still vote for the bastards. Why this latter, dissonant action? I explained this in terms of temptation way back in 1993:
I have the sneaking suspicion that voters realize that they are also part of the problem. Restricting whom they can vote for (in the future) is surely seen by many who vote for term limitations as a way of putting temptation out of reach. Just as a smoker trying to quit the habit gives away his unopened cartons of cigarettes, so the voters disqualify long-term incumbents. There is no realparadox(as the pundits proclaim) in voting for term limits and for your current pork-providing incumbent. It is similar to signing up at a Schick Center and lighting up the last cigarette in your pack.
Citizen support for term limits is one of the few signs of hope for American democracy. Journalistic opposition is understandable, but disheartening. It is disheartening to see hordes of bright people side against the republican idea of limits to government, especially in its least ideological, most strategic form. Fortunately, journalists don't decide much of anything.
 |
Click here for this site's general fair-use permissions statement. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|