Posts
You normally wouldn’t expect a 10-term Congressman to be a big term limits supporter but, as this year’s primary campaign made clear, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) isn’t a typical Congressman.
I ran into the Congressman on the campaign trail in Fort Lauderdale last year where we chatted briefly about the prospects for Congressional term limits. Yes, he’s still on board, he assured me. He also inquired about Paul Jacob, the former executive director of U.S. Term Limits.
Rep. Paul most recently reiterated his support for term limits publically in his Dec. 23, 2007, appearance on Meet the Press, where interviewer Tim Russert grilled the Congressman for the alleged contradiction between his tenure and his support for limits on tenure.
"I support term limits," Rep. Paul told Russert. But Rep. Paul pointed out that he does not and has never supported the idea of self-limiting, but only a term limit requirement on the entire Congress.
“Matter of fact, some of the best people that I worked with, who were the most principled, came in on voluntary term limits,” said Paul. “So some of the good people left.” To get the institutional benefits of term limits, it has to be applied to the whole body.
So is this just political double-speak? Not in Rep. Paul’s case. In his first stint in Congress (1976-1984), well before the term limits explosion of the early 1990s, he was the first representative in modern history to submit a term limits bill for Congress. He voted for all the term limits bills during the Contract with America era and continues to publically support the idea.
He says term limits are a first step, but insists that we must go further.
“To restrict and reduce the power of incumbency, we should address the sweeping powers that the federal government possesses,” he wrote in a pro-term limits press release some years back. He also called for the abolition of the lucrative Congressional pension plan which he does not participate in.
To sign the petition calling for Congressional term limits, see: www.termlimits.org.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Philip,
I find this to be an interesting topic since my wife and I were recently discussing how much it would change Congress if there were term limits imposed. You have individuals like John Murtha, Harry Reid, and Robert Byrd who have been in Congress so long that they keep getting elected just because they are the only known alternative. Their constituents have come to understand these men (whether good or BAD) and so many feel comfortable knowing how they stand on the issues even if they don’t completely agree with them. The problem is there are really honorable men and women who could be valuable tools for "real change" in Congress, yet so many are unwilling to give them a chance because certain reps like these have a lock on their seats. Even in the case of a decent man like John McCain (or maybe especially men like John McCain), turnover should occur. A rotation of new faces will ensure that an aristocracy will not form in the Congress.
Although many of the founding fathers believed that "all men would be tyrants if they could" as John Adams and his wife Abigail repeated to each other frequently, many more believed that the people would elect representatives that had the good will and moral fortitude to know when to step aside. Therefore, no term limits were imposed. Even men, who are not necessarily desirous of power, become so accustomed to the "normalcy" of the current system of Congress that they convince themselves of their own necessity.
In response to a speech Benjamin Franklin gave in regards to the ratification of the current Constitution, an anonymous writer described how “powers, without check (perhaps without the check of term limits), in the hands of even good men, so infatuating is the nature of it, will probably be wantonly, if not tyrannically exercised." Ben Franklin concurred, ensuring the people that although this form of government will likely be well administered for a “course of years” it can only end in a Despotic form of rule much as other forms of gov’t have done before. He describes how the people will be so corrupted, misled, and taken advantage of that they will become incapable of being governed by any other. Sound familiar?
Term limits will ensure our representatives are true representatives of the people, not professional politicians. Such a system will insist on men presenting themselves for service as elected officials who are sacrificing their lives for the good of the country. In our current system, men become so caught up in the world inside the Beltway, they lose site of reality. Even though they were once part of the normal, functioning, everyday society, they have unattached themselves. Why would someone want to leave Congress if they can stay in office, gaining more power and voting to give themselves promotions for seniority or for simply being a standing member of Congress?
Currently there is NO incentive for a man to leave Congress; in fact there is every incentive to remain a member of what is slowly becoming a class in itself: a brotherhood of men who have learned to work the system to their advantage. Men, who although may have at one time had only good intentions for their service, have since had their views distorted or simply aligned with the ideas of other long-standing members of Congress. These same men often come to believe that the best way to make change is to attain power. Who amongst us does not see the trend towards less achievement and more campaigning for control? These last 2 years and even the several years before when Republicans were in control of the Congress, have been marred by an inability to pass even the simplest of orders. How much disorder and failure will the country have to see before The Congress will realize how perpetually vying for power is as good as no action at all?
Although no one hopes that the next couple of years are detrimental to our country, it may take a momentous amount of inaction in order to disappoint Americans enough to insist upon a direct intervention in the way Congress handles its duties instead of relying on the good nature and intentions of our current representatives.
SDG
I understand why Ron Paul and others do not support the idea of self-limiting candidates. But it is the very reason that they don't want to lose the good guys who self-limit their terms that they are the good guys. It is the citizen-legislator, not the professional politician that we want to attract and a self-limiter is by definition not a career pol. Of course, we want all of congress to be limited just as the president is and most governors, many state legislatures and other officials are limited. But self-limiters that keep their word are usually the best of a bad lot because they are not looking forward to the next election, just doing their constitutional duty representing the interests of the country.
Post a Comment