Term Limits on the U.S. Presidency

The leaves of October will soon be turning into the bare branches of November, marking a transition into winter. Come this time in 2008, we'll be counting down to the Presidential election. Those of you who steal a glance at the tube now and then are already aware of this, as the race for Washington has been in swing for a while now.

However, recent political shenanigans have restarted whispering in some quarters about an old warhorse in the political fools' parade: term limits. Sure, it's been bandied about before, most forcefully when Newt Gingrich and his fellow Republicans made the phrase "Contract with America" (or "Contract on America", for the more mordant Democrats out there) their contribution to sound bite history. This go-round, though, seems a bit different. Lately, the whispers have been non-partisan, and the idea seems to have taken root as an issue unto itself.

This may seem like a good thing at first blush. Resentment against the federales, especially in Western states like Idaho, has increased monumentally in the past few decades. The political and social tension has built to the point where steam has started to escape through the cracks; militias and separatist groups are just the tip of the proverbial chunk of frozen water. Term limits seems like a good solution to the ingrained corruption and insularity from the people that we've come to expect from Washington. Right? Raise your hand if you agree.

Let's try to recap this. If the mumblings are to be believed, a majority of people want to set term limits on Congress so that the same schmucks can't be sent back repeatedly and make a mess of things. We want fresh blood to come sweeping in every so often. Well, that's all well and good, but is term limits the way to do it?

The basic flaw in the whole concept of term limits seems to boil down into a pair of troubling suppositions: 1) that the American people are not themselves responsible for the state of government (i.e. it's those damn politicos who screw everything up), and 2) that we are powerless to do anything about it other than limiting the public's right to keep sending idiots into office. How can we be surprised if we think the government fails to care about us? Politicians are not, contrary to public opinion, grown in vats or beamed down from space. They are people, supported and voted in by other people, namely you and me. Believe it or not, they are drawn from the same madding crowd as we are.

And yet, we fail to see the problem.

If your employees consistently aren't worth a damn despite attempts to straighten them out, you fire them. Would you rather have to rotate in new employees every year or so? If a company consistently makes a crappy product, you stop buying it. Is it better to have that decision to buy or not from that company mandated to you by law? When it comes to decisions that cost us money we can see, there's no doubt as to the cause of action. When the costs of politics, which are sometimes hidden from casual scrutiny, are at stake, then it's a different story. If we complained about that, then we might have to do something about it. According to our Constitution, it's not only our right, but our duty and responsibility as well.

Limiting the ability to exercise the most sublimely important of civic duties is not the answer to resolving the popular cry of "Bad Feds!" Learning to exercise our minds and duties in lieu of our mouths is. Worth a shot, right?