Congress: Term limits? Never mind.
Nothing is more pathetic or tawdry than politicians explaining to voters why they lied. Congressional Republicans caught up in the term limits debacle compound an early lie (why I’ll serve only three terms) with a new one, claiming they must stay on “for the good of my constituents”, taking hypocrisy to a new subterreanean level.
At least seven House Republicans who were elected on the pledge they would be “citizen legislators” – not “career politicians” -- are now weaseling out and will be on the ballot this fall. Term limits grew out of decades of GOP frustration over Democratic party control of the Congress. In the Gingrich-led rebellion of 1994, Republicans wooed voters on the nonsensical notion that the House shouldn’t be a home but merely a Day’s Inn, a brief but invigorating public service stopover before returning to civilian life. Whether term limits had anything to do with the GOP election sweep in `94, no one can be sure, but it created a movement promoted not only by shrewd Republican strategists but by academics (who should know better) and radio talk show hosts (who don’t).
Once in office, these “citizen legislators” gerrymandered their districts into the shape of pretzels that housed only incumbent-friendly voters so that no future elections could even be contested. That worked so well that the only an inadvertent “yes” vote on a tax increase could derail a lifetime career – the House was home. Which made the term limit pledge a bit of a nag. Now that the Outs were In, the question becomes: “What were we thinking of in limiting terms in office?”
Who wants to leave? It’s a short work-week, the pay and perks are good. So if you have a job like that, why would you ever give it up simply because of a campaign gimmick your party used to win back the Congress a dozen years ago? You don’t. So you explain to voters why, for their own good, campaign promises must be broken. More often than not, the spin machine coughs up such hairballs as this one from Rep. Tim Johnson of Illinois: “I underestimated the value of seniority.” An aide added: “As a rookie going in, he didn’t understand what he could accomplish for his district by being there a longer period.” Is there a dry eye in the House?
Back in `94, Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley was defeated by Republican George Nethercutt after George promised voters he would serve only three terms. In 2000, after some very zany and surreal debate over his term limit pledge, voters re-elected him to a fourth term.
I’ve long believed that term limits is one of the silliest ideas ever to spawn a national movement. I even wrote a book about it: Giving Up on Democracy: Why Term Limits are Bad for America. All those academics and talk show motor-mouths who praised term limits as the salvation of American politics have been strangely silent as more and more GOP incumbents renege on their pledges to quit. Maybe they finally got around to reading my book.
At least seven House Republicans who were elected on the pledge they would be “citizen legislators” – not “career politicians” -- are now weaseling out and will be on the ballot this fall. Term limits grew out of decades of GOP frustration over Democratic party control of the Congress. In the Gingrich-led rebellion of 1994, Republicans wooed voters on the nonsensical notion that the House shouldn’t be a home but merely a Day’s Inn, a brief but invigorating public service stopover before returning to civilian life. Whether term limits had anything to do with the GOP election sweep in `94, no one can be sure, but it created a movement promoted not only by shrewd Republican strategists but by academics (who should know better) and radio talk show hosts (who don’t).
Once in office, these “citizen legislators” gerrymandered their districts into the shape of pretzels that housed only incumbent-friendly voters so that no future elections could even be contested. That worked so well that the only an inadvertent “yes” vote on a tax increase could derail a lifetime career – the House was home. Which made the term limit pledge a bit of a nag. Now that the Outs were In, the question becomes: “What were we thinking of in limiting terms in office?”
Who wants to leave? It’s a short work-week, the pay and perks are good. So if you have a job like that, why would you ever give it up simply because of a campaign gimmick your party used to win back the Congress a dozen years ago? You don’t. So you explain to voters why, for their own good, campaign promises must be broken. More often than not, the spin machine coughs up such hairballs as this one from Rep. Tim Johnson of Illinois: “I underestimated the value of seniority.” An aide added: “As a rookie going in, he didn’t understand what he could accomplish for his district by being there a longer period.” Is there a dry eye in the House?
Back in `94, Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley was defeated by Republican George Nethercutt after George promised voters he would serve only three terms. In 2000, after some very zany and surreal debate over his term limit pledge, voters re-elected him to a fourth term.
I’ve long believed that term limits is one of the silliest ideas ever to spawn a national movement. I even wrote a book about it: Giving Up on Democracy: Why Term Limits are Bad for America. All those academics and talk show motor-mouths who praised term limits as the salvation of American politics have been strangely silent as more and more GOP incumbents renege on their pledges to quit. Maybe they finally got around to reading my book.
posted by Victor Kamber | 10:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home