Every few years there is a resurgence of interest in a
Constitutional Convention with an array of amendment proposals. A favorite is the idea of term limits for Congress. The argument is drawn out of the frustration by
Americans dissatisfied with the lack of responsiveness by their representatives;
and perceived poor performance of the bicameral legislature.
Term limits may force legislators back into the private
sector to earn a real living. But they will also guarantee revolving
representatives. The understanding of which should be reviewed for its
consequences before promoting the measure.
Are Term Limits All They are Quacked
Up to Be?
For an example of how nefarious term limits are we need not
look any further than our current Administration. The term “lame duck” is often associated with
an incumbent president in the second—and final—term, where the president is at
odds with the legislature or has no motivation to work with it. Thus, he is
ineffective and unaccountable to anyone. Without accountability there is no motive to do either what is morally
right; or, what the constituents who vote expect. It is the sole reason President
Obama can and has successfully circumvented the constitution by rerouting legislation
via Executive Orders, etc. Those without
any moral compass have license when they know their term will end. The
incumbent on his last term is more than a lame duck. He can be a constitutional menace—an engineer
who has no need to stop politicizing the public against their will, knowing he
will be free from the freight train by the time it rams into a brick wall. Superficially, term limits appear to reduce
the apparent misgivings of long term incumbents. But what is not observed is
that in limiting terms, we actually limit our voice. As for reducing collusion,
corruption and so forth: Term limits do
not stop an outgoing elected official from orchestrating the perpetuation of
his agenda with the next candidate.
Speeding Up the Political Revolving
Door
The problem just mentioned is a greater unseen menace than
the original problem that leads many to believe term limits will resolve
irrational legislation (such as “Obamacare”) and lack of constitutional
representation. The unseen—and dangerous—appeal of term limits is that it gives
license to individual Americans to operate on auto-pilot. An incumbent is automatically thrown out
after a set number of years. Political alliances that are now formed in the
open will be formed behind the scenes by a systematic and automatic succession
of politicians groomed and ready to replace the outgoing incumbent. This may seem efficient, but efficiency was
exactly what the Framers were trying to avoid when they designed a constitution
with more than 30 checks and balances incorporated within its body. It is not incumbency that is nefarious. It is
the machine that can (but does not necessarily drive it.
While we may pay particular attention to the single politician-or
a single party, we forget that this politician (and/or party) was promoted by
someone—and many “someones”. Term limits render the public impotent to stop the
machinery running behind the scenes. Rather,
they promote a stronger system that reduces the
unique power of our republic that is
by and for the people. When one candidate is elected, a body will immediately
organize for a successor to maintain the body’s power. This goes far beyond the current overgrown
power of party politics, but balloons collusion by many factions vying for
power through government by validating the system. If Americans are disillusioned
by party politics and collusion now, wait until we have term limits. All
the problems disdained by the public now will become an automatic revolving
door under term limits as the element of surprise is gone. Term limits provides regularity, not honesty
and representation. Free from term
limits, the people decide how long an incumbent remains, not a system, and particularly,
not this system. Irregularity of incumbency—vis a vis: unpredictability in
elections—actually thwarts the automatic calculation and systematic
orchestration of groups seeking power rather than service to the Constitution
they swear to uphold.
Who’s Steering The Ship?
Term limits puts voting on auto-pilot, hardly what the
American public needs given their growing laziness. Ours is a republic specifically designed to be
run by the people, who appoint representatives that identify their unique and
specific concerns from state to state and district to district, respectively.
Our involvement is what makes us free. But as far back as this Republic began
there were concerns about how effective this form of government would be. Among
others, Benjamin Franklin worried that the American constituency would not be
up to the task, instead resolving to political laziness and indifference in
civic affairs. Therefore, anything that
can exacerbate this malaise, such as putting us on auto-pilot, must be avoided
like the plague it drives. Secondly, we
must end pointing fingers of blame.
One point of blame is laid on heavily financed elected
officials signaling collusion and corruption—because they listen to deep pocket
campaign contributors. That may be superficially relevant. But elected officials are not elected by deep
pockets contributors: They are elected by their
constituency. Without the substantial voice
of their constituency many elected officials vote based upon contributions who do voice their opinions. This is not the fault of the elected official
or deep pocket supporters. The absent constituent must put their finger down: This
is his fault. Elected officials who are
being told what to do by constituency will not routinely vote contrary to their
dictates, knowing if voters put them in office they can just as easily take
them out. Elected officials vote
according to the wallet when the constituency is conspicuously absent from
duty. With no other voices to guide them, they have nothing to fear, knowing
also that most will be absent in the voting booth also. When the people speak
their minds and are actively engaged in the American process corruption is prevented.
Unless of course, the constituency is corrupt.
A Compass and a Rudder
To prevent a wandering, mindless, and greedy constituency
takes propagation of our American tradition. The argument that America is based
upon a lack of tradition is a mistake.
George Washington was so concerned about the progeny of American
perspective and its ramifications for future elected officials that he
believed—and espoused—a national school teaching the principles of the
Constitution as imperative to America’s future. This oft-quoted section speaks
to his concern:
[T]he assimilation of the principles, opinions, and manners
of our country-men by the common education of a portion of our youth from every
quarter well deserves attention. The more homogenous our citizens can be made
in these particulars the greater will be our prospect of permanent union; and a
primary object of such a national institution should be the education of our
youth in the science of government. In a republic what species of knowledge can
be equally important and what duty more pressing on its legislature than to
patronize a plan for communicating it to those who are to be the future
guardians of the liberties of the country?[i]
Designed to be our compass and rudder, Washington was
encouraging a national school for the cause. He also suggested a national
academy for military training and education.[ii] Arguably, a national school devoted to the
teaching of our republic, while not unconstitutional given several clauses that
could support it, does not mean it is wise as it holds many troubling problems
of its own. The greatest concern, in light of an indifferent public, would be
whether such a school could withstand the temptation of corrupted bureaucrats
forging an education of their own making. That is, after all, exactly what has
happened to public education beginning with John Dewey in the ‘30s and growing
exponentially since nationalization in 1965.[iii]
On the other hand, there are those with a smidgen of knowledge, who, once
gaining it, believe themselves to be experts. They may have a rudder, but have
no compass, nor the capacity to know which way to steer.
A nationalized school
teaching founding doctrines and our heritage is not the answer. But it can be argued that states should be
teaching those; and mandating them to be promoted for perpetuation of their
respective states and the union, as President Washington suggested. A
curriculum for every year of education should be standard. Texas has such a requirement.
Graduates of public institutions of higher education must fulfill four core
courses in Texas and US constitutions. This however, is merely cursory. Yearly
teaching of constitutional ideas in conjunction with world history for
perspective requires consistent study throughout the education years and beyond.[iv]
This brings us back to the real problem: Poor representation
is merely a symptom of political laziness.
The remedy for poor representation is not term limits, but an active and
knowledgeable public. In depth knowledge of American constitutional concepts
and accurate historical perspectives, derived from thorough individual and institutional
study of the founder’s own words and works, is half the remedy. The other half
is constantly speaking up, not just in the voting booth, but between elections
directly to respective representatives. Americans
should run from the concept of term limits unless they would like to add one
more chink in the shackles of political laziness that got us in this predicament
in the first place.
[i] Eighth Annual Message of Geo. Washington, Dec. 7,
1796.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] http://www.scribd.com/doc/49149656/Elementary-and-Secondary-Education-Act-of-1965#sthash.MVANep0d.dpuf.
The Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 copied the nationalization efforts of
England and other European countries utilizing a nationalistic approach to
education. While England, in particular
had huge success in bringing 80% of their population out of poverty with a
nationalized school system in the late 1800’s, it is equally important to note Britain’s
public school system originated from a feudal-monarchical which eventually
became a representational democracy in the 1960s. Nationalism is often a portal
for governmental system transitions. For
them it was a step away from that
dual system. Given we have been a
representational democracy since inception, nationalization of public schools
was a step backward in 1965 toward a
socialistic society.
[iv] Having formally and independently researched primary
source documents of Colonial, revolutionary, post-revolutionary and US
constitutional history for many years, I can attest that study of the American
perspective cannot achieve a measure of proficiency without consistent study as
an American lifestyle.
No comments:
Post a Comment