Term Limits And Partisan Politics.
Over and over, political activists are tackling the problem of long-term incumbents. Once someone has been elected– or worse, re-elected– they become difficult to unseat. Political observers contend that this situation leads to less effective government, and a little too much coziness between elected officials and their big donors and lobbyists.
More than one state has dealt with this concern by limiting the number of terms an official may serve. After so many years, you aren’t eligible for re-election. So far, except for the presidency, this effort has failed at the Federal level.
Some of the pundits are very concerned about this movement. The conservative thinker Burke argued that politics is a skill like any other. Just as you would not want an inexperienced surgeon operating on you or your family, so you would not want a novice elected official deciding on far-reaching laws and policy. Every newly elected official will say that the job is far more complicated than they imagine, and that most of the first first term is consumed by simply ‘learning the ropes’. Real mastery of the process can take a decade or more.
Here in the Pelican State, we have instituted limits, and everything is helter-skelter. Legislators are running for the Senate, Senators are running for the House, and the senior members of both bodies are on the way out, or at least on their way to the other wing of the Capitol. Many observers fear that the real winners in all of this may be big business. That seems a valid point: when the elected officials are all new, the only people with real experience are lobbyists… not the best of all worlds.
But there is another problem facing our government today: increasingly acrimonious partisanship. We have reached a point where trying to win the game has become more important than the game itself; victory for one party or the other is more important than being American. We are so busy trying to win skirmishes over our differences, we ignore the overwhelming number of issues where most of us agree.
I have an idea about how we might kill two birds with one stone: Extendible Limits. After a candidate has served the maximum years allowed by law, a vote of the governing body– by private ballot– in which he has served might allow him to stand for re-election: a simple majority would be required for the first post-limit election, and with each successive election bid an increasingly higher required majority would be required: 53%, 56%, etc.
For the head of state, perhaps permission from both bodies would be required, based on the same concept.
This has some very positive outcomes. Backbiting is punished, cooperation is rewarded. Politicians have to decide if they want to play hardball and settle for a few quick wins and then leave; or if they wish to really work at governance, at collaboration, and at consensus-building. I suspect the best and the brightest will choose the latter.
And the Good ol’ boys will find quickly find themselves in the political unemployment line. The damage they cause will be very limited.
The very best people we produce will rise, and serve as an example to all who follow. Those with skill, and vision, and a passion for democracy, will quickly grow in stature and respect. And the length of time they serve will be in direct correlation to their talents.
