The Trouble with our Alternatives
Allan Bevere has preempted by writing about something I was intending to discuss and doing it better. He does this by discussing current protests and reactions to them in his post Town Hall Meetings Protests and Tone-Deaf Politicians. I have been repeatedly amazed by the extent to which both sides of many debates are completely oblivious to the ways in which they use one another’s arguments each time the roles are reversed.
I would add a couple of points of my own. First, though I understand what has driven Allan to support term limits, I have little faith in them. I see little benefit resulting where they are in force. I believe that the only possible solution is a better educated voter, intelligently involved in the process. As long as a substantial and deciding portion of the voting public makes decisions based on hype and spin, we will continue to make bad decisions.
Second, and I think a corollary to this, is that politicians and voters in general really love an ad hominem approach to the political debate. We believe what people say if they’re on our side. We smear groups with the actions of some. The tea party protesters are smeared because some participants cross a line, as they did in Jacksonville, but ACORN is smeared because some people that they hire cut corners and engage in fraud.
I’m fairly certain that someone on either side will tell me that I am not comparing similar things here, but I have yet to see a fair and careful evaluation in either case. It might turn out that one group is truly as evil as someone thought, but the evidence has yet to be produced. In addition, my argument is not based on which, if either, turns out to truly be in the wrong. The issue is that so many people have made the decision based not on evidence, of which most of us have very little, but on a perception of whose side each group (or random aggregation, as the case may be) is on.
My suggestion here is that a debate that so constantly turns to an ad hominem approach can hardly be expected to produce rational results. That’s the trouble with our alternatives. I would gladly vote the Democrats out of office, but then the Republicans would take over. I would gladly vote the Republicans out of office, but then the Democrats would (and have) taken over.
The great equivalence, in my view, is that neither party is willing to have their sacred cow programs examined for effectiveness. They just have a different list of programs they hold sacred. Thus I am an independent, even though here in Florida that excludes me from primaries.
Excellent analysis, Henry!
Thanks for your additional thoughts, Henry.
In regards to term limits, you are right. California has had term limits for legislators since 1990, and it has utterly failed to produce any of the benefits we thought it would. What it did was increase the power and influence of the long term (and unelected) staffers and special interest groups (“lobbyists”) due to the fact that the new Senators and Assemblymen must have someone to rely on to show them the ropes.
Democracy is certainly messy, and my own leanings lead me to believe it is less messy when Government does many small things rather than trying to do one big thing. I think people would be more comfortable with individual initiatives to solve the various health care problems which can be debated and modified based on that problem’s individual characteristics. And there are many of us very concerned about the unintended consequences of sweeping legislation … google “CPSIA” for examples of how a law banning lead in toys can decimate the youth sports industry, impact small toy manufacturers and even libraries and thrift shops.
I’m not sure Congress is smart enough to handle this for us.
Several good points, especially about congress not being smart enough. On CPSIA, I have no need to google. Some very good friends do hand made toys they sell at craft shows, and fall under the law, while as a publisher, I have to file documents with retailers indicating that I comply with the law, even though all the paperwork simply indicates that I don’t publish children’s books. Further, my printer has already filed all of that, so I’m just duplicating paperwork, since they, as the actual manufacturer, are the ones that would have to certify the lead content if I did publish any children’s books.
Very thoughtless on the part of those who wrote the legislation. Or more likely they let lobbyists for large companies write the legislation with the intent of shutting out the small producers.
Just on the point of term limits, can I reference my own experience from some 20 years as a local councillor (this being in England – it may well translate as “concilman” in the States).
I got nothing useful done in my first two years; it took that long to get some reasonable idea of how to actually get things done. Actually, I hadn’t made very much progress by the end of my first term. By then, though, I had found out how to manage the long-term council employees…
Most of my most useful work came in my second term and in the first two years of my third. By then I was getting tired and stale on the one hand and also far too attracted to the status, rather than the prospect of solving problems for my electorate. I then took a rest for four years, got elected again, and this time resigned halfway through my second term, because I just didn’t have the vision and the energy to push things through which I felt were needed any more.
It would have been exceptionally easy to stay there for the status and to be very little use to the voters. I’m really very happy (nay, smug) that I made the decision to quit.
Everything I know from fellow politicians at somewhat higher levels of government indicates that the learning curve is longer and steeper at higher levels, but the fatigue and the insidious allure of power work to much the same timescale. My instinct is that no-one should do the job for more than about 10 years without a break, and that it wouldn’t be a bad thing if they were compelled to do that. The decision was a lot closer than I’d have liked.
Henry, Frank, and Chris:
Some great insights on the matter of term limits. Definitely food for thought. Thanks!