A Shmoe Speaks: Why Term Limits Are Like Helmet Laws
David Bernstein talks about why the idiocy of Republicans shows the need for term limits.
I couldn't disagree more. I don't believe it's the function of government to protect people from their own willful stupidity.
Term limits are helmet laws for voters. You should not need a law that tells you're an adult, when riding around on a crotch rocket, it's probably a good idea to give your cranium some protection in case you suddenly find yourself skidding along the asphalt at escape velocity. However, if you do not wear a helmet, it's obvious what's inside your brain pan isn't much worth saving.
If people are happy (can potentially be read as: too stupid and uninformed not to be unhappy) with their elected legislative representatives, why shouldn't they be allowed to re-elect them to as many terms as they so choose? Uninformed voters get the government they deserve. I see no reason to compel the stupid voters to wear a helmet.
I dunno. Maybe I'm missing something. That's why I'm the shmoe in this equation.
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
The thing you're missing is that the actions of uninformed voters affect those of us who ARE informed extremely negatively. So unless those of us who have brain cells spend our entire lives trying to get the rest of the population to give a turd (tiltiing at windmills?) the general populace will continue to keep these gonads in power for too long. Term limits seem like a reasonable way to keep individual senators and representatives from amassing too much power. Breaking the two party system might help too but that would be a separate dispute.
Morph: That is a valid concern and I thank you for it. The question would then be: how long is too long? And let's turn that around: if the concern is about uninformed voters, what if we treated the disease? Would you be willing to put requirements in place for voters that they have to have more than citizenship and a pulse in order to be able to vote? For example, and just a very brief example, if you can't name who the Speaker of the House is, you can't vote?
I'm not sure I'm big on the poll testing, if only because the idea has been too easily abused in the past. As to the first question (how long is too long), that's easy. One is enough. If you create a system whereby it's nearly impossible to become a "career politician" (i.e., you could only do that by running for a different office every time), then I think you by necessity start to only attract people that have something they actually want to try and accomplish (for good or ill).
That's a temptingly sensible requirement. However, we had requirements to vote at one time. They were called Jim Crow laws. Oh, and at one point you had to own land and have a penis. What you're suggesting is not of the same nature as those examples but intelligence is harder to judge than knowing the answers to a few trivia questions. In order for the electorate to be more soundly eductated we would actually need an effective educational system. There again we can have another discussion about that. Why not start with term limits similar to the President? Two times and you're out.
Morph: As you say, there's a big difference between discriminating against blacks and women and discriminating against the ignorant. And while it's not exactly trivial to know who the main players in government are, considering how few people actually know that "trivia," do you really thing the uneducated and lazy are going to put forth the effort to learn the "trivia" just so they can vote. I'm thinking it might be an effective way to deter the ignorant from voting, just because they can't be freaking bothered to learn that stuff just for one day in November.
Doc: One term does sound like a temptingly easy answer, but my question would be this–and I honestly don't know the answer–is one term enough to get anything done in DC? I mean, seriously, what major thing has been accomplished in this last Congressional session? Correction: what major thing worth a damn has been accomplished? Other than, you know, stripping away more of our freedoms and killing that evil internet gambling menace. And here's the other thing–if you're in for just one term, you're in for one term. You don't have to give your constituents squat because you're in and you can't be in again–so fuck it, do what you wanna do.
My only response, given that precious little has been accomplished in the last legislative session, is to ponder how much of the ineffectual gridlock boils down to career politicians jockeying for re-election bids and "future considerations."
On the other hand, the limitation on the damage one could do (or good) seems to make the entire career path unappealing to the sorts of folks likely to screw their constituents — you do something bad, and it's not like you get to spend the rest of your career hiding from them in D.C.
You answer you're own question, Widge? What would get accomplished? Maybe not much! How nice would that be? No Patriot Act, no DHS, we might still have Habeus Corpus even! You're also assuming that the entire apparatus surrounding Congress would stay the same as it is now under a term limit system. I would think that the apparatus would change (maybe not for the better, but we could hope) since career politicians wouldn't exist. I'd also like to see residency requirements in place as well. If I have to be a resident for a certain amount of time to qualify for in-state tuition why shouldn't the person who is a representative of the at state have lived there for a sane amount of time? P.O. Boxes and weekend houses in the Hamptons or the Appalachians don't count.
But do the lazy and ignorant actually in significant numbers?
I can't remember the story or author, but one metohd could be require everyone to vote, but put a None of the Above choice on the ballot. Let the lazy and ignorant truly be counted.