A recurrent complaint in government is the entrenched nature of elected office. Elect a candidate to office, particularly for a second term, and he/she is probably there for a very long time. The power of the incumbent is well known, and the concern about incumbents is that they tend to move away from their own consciences, away from the needs of the voters and , and into the orbit of the big money peddlers.
So an increasing number of states have instituted term limits: so many terms in office, and you can't stand for reelection. Recurrent efforts at instituting these limits at the Federal level have failed, with the exception of the Oval Office. After FDR, presidents have been limited to two terms.
Political observers, however, have noted these limits are not entirely a good thing. Edmund Burke pointed out that skillful governance is a trade, a profession even; there is much to learn about running government. It takes at least two years for most elected freshmen to learn even the basics of a job. To learn enough to move into a position of real effectiveness may take 10 years or more.
Louisiana is one of the states to have chosen to limit the years that elected officials may serve. This has caused a re-shuffling of anyone and everyone with long-term experience, and a lot of our hardest working representatives have lost elections, or have simply chosen to leave public service. So it appears that the only real experience left among the elected personnel, may be the UN-elected personnel, the bureaucrats and the hired representatives of special interest groups. Not exactly an improvement, that.
There is a second problem in the political landscape, however: left vs right, republican vs. democrat. It seems that everyone is trying so hard to win out over the other side, that no one is interested win-win solutions. Beating the opponent has become more important than serving the majority. In the nasty fighting over bragging rights, it seems that the cooperative American spirit has been completely lost.
So here's a suggestion that might address both problems: Extendable Term Limits. When a candidate reaches the end of standard term limits, he/she may run again-- IF a consensus (private) vote of the body in which the candidate serves permits it. The first post-limit try, the candidate needs a simple majority. But every election after that, the required consensus increases by 3%. So first post-limit permission requires more than 50% of the concerned house; next time, more than 53%; then 56%, and so on.
And for the executive office, perhaps candidacy beyond the basic term limits would require those percentages of both houses.
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.
The deadwood, the dirtballs, will find themselves limited to a very few terms. They will exert very little influence on the system, and quickly leave.
Only those elected officials who show true leadership, those who reach across the aisle, those who build consensus, those who focus on agreement, not acrimony-- those will be the people will move into increasing positions of power. And the number of their terms will directly correlate with the vision and skill they bring to the job.
Politics Products on our marketplace
Additional Articles From -
Home |
Politics