Steve Trinward Steve Trinward is "Soul Proprietor" of Trinwords.Com (wordsmithing and a contributing editor for Rational Review. CLICK HERE FOR RATIONAL REVIEW NEWS DIGEST SUPPORT OUR
SPONSORS WHY AREN'T YOU A SPONSOR?
|
Term limits reconsidered Those who know me well know I have been a strong advocate of term limits pretty much ever since I first gave the issue any consideration. The concept of "citizen statesman" (as advanced by Thomas Jefferson, to name just one) -- whereby a person running for office does so with the intention of serving a term or two, getting something done and then returning to a "real career" -- has always seemed to me part and parcel of public service in a free society. But lately I have had some second thoughts -- not about the concept, but with regard to how it works in the present political climate. Having seen firsthand what happens when a Governor, for example, no longer has the need to curry favor with the voters, and can do a one-eighty on the very issue that got him elected, I've been rethinking my stance a bit. I refer, of course, to recently deposed Tennessee Governor Don Sundquist, who spent his first term in office affirming his pledge not to support a state income tax … and then spent his last term -- knowing he could not be elected to a third one under the Volunteer State's term limits restrictions -- openly advocating such a tax, joining his alleged adversaries, the Democrats, in pushing for such a measure. And then I had a very interesting conversation with my own State Representative, and became even more concerned. Gary Odom (D-55th District) and I were at the monthly meeting of the Libertarian Party of Davidson County, where he was about to hold forth on the political and policy issues facing Tennessee in the coming legislative term, following my introduction. I was discussing a number of issues with him, attempting to further feel him out and assess his position on some key issues. I already knew his position on the state income tax, which he'd delivered in no uncertain terms during previous sessions: "It's unconstitutional, and it should not even be in question. Until and unless the people of Tennessee decide to amend that Constitution, an income tax should not even be brought to the floor of the Assembly!” (Although a Democrat, Rep. Odom is also a man of integrity, who crossed party lines to maintain this stance.) He had also been among the most vocal critics of the bloated and irresponsible healthcare boondoggle known as TennCare, so I knew his feelings there as well. Add to this the fact that his income tax opposition had just cost him a House Committee Chairmanship, thanks to the vindictive and mean-spirited edict of House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh (who has now stripped everyone not favoring a state income tax from the rolls of committee leadership), and I knew I was privileged to have a man of honor as my advocate on the Hill. But somewhere along the way, we got on this subject of "citizen statesman," and I noted the Metro Council provision for term limits for all their members. And it was here that Gary Odom surprised me a bit: "The problem with that," he said with some emotion in his voice, "is that as soon as re-election is no longer an issue, they stop doing their jobs for their constituents." He noted that his office had been fielding and handling local issues for the past year or more, on things which were normally the purview of the constituent's council member, simply because nobody else was stepping up to take on the mission. At the time, I had no answer to that one. After some thought, now I think I do. The basic problem as I see it is that the paradigm shift -- toward term limits and short time political careerism -- is still being imposed on a culture of lifetime political careers, and "what's in it for me?" public servants. The motivation for performing such services has been based for so many years on a foundation of "I do this for you, and you re-elect me to this post!" that it is now accepted as the only way to do things political. For decades, if not indeed centuries, the allure of politics and public office in America has largely come from the opportunity to wield power, accrete influence and remain at the head of a virtual fiefdom. Even those who attempted to enter the arena with more honorable intentions soon discovered how the game was really played. It is widely known that when a newly elected Congressperson goes to Capitol Hill, the first meetings are with the prevailing leadership, whose stamp of approval is necessary if the new arrival is ever to "fit into" the existing structures of patronage and backscratching. Those who survive the gauntlet, who are ready to "go along to get along" go through one door, and find support for their "little bills" in exchange for buying into the game as it is. Those who don't seem to want to play ball get pushed through the other door, where the tiger awaits to rend garments and tear political flesh, and the prospects for regaining the seat are dim indeed. In some cases, these crusaders have decided that the cost to their own convictions was too much to bear, and after a term or two in office, they term-limited themselves back into private life. (Tim Penny is a perfect example of this.) Rather than being seen as the new pathfinders to a better way of governance, however, most of these folks have been calumnied and labeled as "quitters," who lacked the will to get things done under fire. Meanwhile the career politicians perpetuate, at least at the higher levels of office, where talk of term limits falls mostly on deaf ears. But back on the farm, or the city council or other local level, in the face of recent term-limits legislation, these same people are trying to keep the same rules in place. And the ones who formerly used local office as either (a) a steppingstone to a lifelong political career higher up, or (b) a lifetime sinecure for part-time "public service" and local power … don't have the same incentives anymore. (The steppingstone method only works when you can settle in first, which a two-term limit hardly allows for, and the lifetime sinecure is eliminated just by the definition of the word "limits.") If we now would declare that seeking re-election should not be the primary goal for an elected official -- and that the desire to serve a term or two, do the best you can, and then return to the "civilian" classes, should -- we need to find a different set of motivators, or at least a different mindset among those who would seek office under these conditions. So far, all we are doing is discouraging the current crop of game-players from keeping their hats in the ring, or even serving their final terms with concern for their constituents; we also need to encourage the new paradigm, of service for its own sake, if it is to thrive. I'd compare this in a strange way to my experience of the college fraternity system back in the early 1970s, as the long-held traditions of hazing and Hell Week came to a well-deserved close. The barbarism of some of these practices is unquestioned, although truth be told, most of what went on was far less demanding or sinister than was reported. However, there was a purpose in all of that, and one which it took many years to compensate for when Hell Week was outlawed. The theory of pledge-class treatment held that, by giving a group of neophytes a common purpose or focus for their attentions (in this case, those oppressive Brothers with their "pledge raids" and demands for "Give me Ten, Pledge!" and other indignities), one could create a unified force within that group. Then, upon admitting and accepting that "class" into the Brotherhood itself, one already had some unity among them, rather than a ragtag scattering of individuals with no commonality but, perhaps, chronological age. Finding a substitute for that "unifying force" has been the challenge of fraternities and sororities (and pretty much any other group that needs fresh blood) ever since. Fortunately for us, the "substitute" for the career politician paradigm is more readily at hand. The hard part so far is convincing enough people to run for office, with the competing motivation of temporary service -- and doing good things for society -- as its own reward. We must first overcome generations of people raised under the banner of "ward heelers" and perpetual political Machines. Just as changing the public attitude toward taxation (or the War on Drugs) requires a combined process of re-education and the demonstration of a better way, so does this issue. As we do more to discourage the conventional political careerists from staying in the game, and to bring in the folks who see this deeper purpose in the whole thing, we will have fewer problems of this sort. But until we get through this transition period, we need to be especially aware of the rough spots in the process. And we need to find alternative incentives for being involved in public service, so that more people with the right motivations will seek office, and change the landscape around them in the process. How do we accomplish this? I'm not sure yet, but at least the question has now been asked …. |
