This might be a stupid question - and don't tell me "there's no such thing as a stupid question" - trust me, there are. I've heard them. They exist. Ok, back to the potential assanine query at hand: why are there no term limits for members of the United States Congress? George Washington, great and wise leader that he was, set the precedent by refusing to seek a 3rd 4-year term as President, worrying that it would lead to despotism, abuse of power, and eventually another monarchy the likes of which America had just won its freedom from. Franklin Roosevelt later ran for and was elected to 4 successive terms, with WWII as his reason for breaking precedent, but after him it was deemed a good thing to have no President serve more than 2 terms. In more recent times, a relatively young Bill Clinton pondered whether it might sense to have the rule changed to "no more than 2 SUCCESSIVE terms," but the rule remains. No more than 2 terms, period.
Yet it seems to me that the exact same rationale ought to, nay, does, apply to members serving in each chamber of Congress. Times change, and so should Congressional representatives. Incumbency is a much greater advantage to Congressional reps than it is to Presidents, effectively guaranteeing that a member will serve as long as he or she wishes. No wonder we have such partisan animosity in this country! How different would our system be, how much more effective and less pork-fed, if members were only allowed to serve a maximum of 6 years? I'm sorry, but I don't care who you are, if you serve with people for upwards of 6, 8, 12, or 40 years, you're going to garner a lot of favors owed to you, as well as incurring a pretty steep bill yourself. Take away that lifetime/career ambition though, and you may actually get public servants in there who not only start out with a servant's heart (as I believe most do), but don't get to stay long enough for it to be corrupted or otherwise transformed into something altogether different.
I do not think this is a stupid question at all. Institutional capture and entrenched interest are all signs that the system is failing and needs to be changed.
But how would you change it if the change is controlled by those who are affected adversely by the change? Catch-22!
If the US is a true democracy you all should protest, and so should we in the UK, although it seems the only ones staying on in our Parliament are back-benchers, good-for-nothings. If their constituents want rubbish they are welcome to elect them... no?
Well, can't you guys elect them out of office?
Posted by: Shefaly | July 11, 2007 at 11:04 AM