They hoped that this new form of government would encourage the development of the "citizen legislator". That is, ordinary citizens from all walks of life who would take their turn in coming to Washington, local councils, and state government, serve a term or two, and then return home. Thus, allowing most everyone an opportunity to participate in controlling their own destiny.
The Founders never intended on the creation of political factions as mentioned above. They opposed the creation of another professional political class like the one they had just thrown off; one comprised of wealthy upper crust aristocrats. They viewed these individuals as having no connection with the ordinary colonist. They were considered haughty and elitist. They were too inclined to tax ordinary citizens while exempting themselves and their cronies. Laws which applied to the common farmer or business owner didn't apply to them.
In short, our Founders wanted to avoid what we have today---a professional political class of wealthy individuals belonging to competing political factions controlled by powerful special interests groups who've made it all but impossible for the average citizen to participate in the election process. This is thanks mainly to partisan gerrymandering of districts which all but guarantees no party turnover; unlimited financing of not just campaigns, but of legalized bribery through so-called "leadership PACs" which serve as a near bottomless source of funds for the officeholder thanks to Citizens United; the co-opting of the legislative process by very well paid lobbyists (many of whom are former politicians or staffers) who "help" write legislation and then ensure its passage through the maze of committee chairmen "gatekeepers" who get their cut at each stage of the process; and, of course, unlimited terms which means that a well funded politician can hold onto an office virtually for life, just like those old aristocrats. In fact, it's not uncommon for their children, relative, or close friend to pick up the seat after they retire with a full salary and benefits for life---all paid for by you and me.
It's the latter issue, unlimited terms, that I want to briefly discuss. Prior to 1947, the President of the United States could serve indefinitely. However, almost all had previously self-limited themselves to two four year terms out of tradition based on George Washington's example. The one exception was the 32nd President, Franklin D. Roosevelt (aka "FDR"). Roosevelt, a Democrat, was elected in 1933 amid the Great Depression. Through essentially a reworking of government regulations and a series of economic measures and public work projects, he staved off the collapse of the economy, at least for awhile.
However, by 1941, it was beginning to appear that the country might be starting to slip back into, at the very minimum, a recession, if not another depression when the Imperial Japanese Navy struck Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The next day America was at war with Japan and a few days later, with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and their combined allies. Although Roosevelt faced elections every four years, the American People believed that wartime was no time to change leaders. Unfortunately, he never saw the war conclusion. He died just a month shy of Germany's capitulation and four months shy of Japan's surrender.
Nevertheless, the American People seemed to agree, perhaps after seeing the toll that 12 years in office took on their beloved president. It was decided that two four years in Washington's tradition were enough. So, on February 27, 1947, the Twenty-second Amendment was ratified limiting the presidency to eight years. What was not changed, however, was the tenure of Congress. The Senate tenure remained six years per term while the House stayed at two years per term. However, there was no cap placed on how many terms they could serve.
In those days there was more participation in politics. People trusted their government (and the media). Gerrymandering hadn't quite become the science it is now, and special interests hadn't yet seized total control of the political process. People voted (61.4% in 1964 vs.55.7% in 2016). It was still possible for a "Mr. Smith" to afford to run for office and go to Washington. Compromise and civility was more the norm than the visceral extremism of today.
Of course, that's all changed now. Today, the average cost to run for a U.S. Senate seat is approximately $15 million dollars. To run for a House seat, the average cost is (ready for this?)...$2 million dollars. The reelection percentage of incumbents range from 91% in the House to 84% in the Senate and has been that way (or higher) for a very long while now, and yet the approval rating of Congress (as of February 2020) is only 23% (it's been as low as 9%). To put it another way, 77% of your employers think you're doing a lousy job and yet you're rehired almost 100% of the time. I don't know about you, but I find something very unsettling about this.
The Founders never intended on the creation of political factions as mentioned above. They opposed the creation of another professional political class like the one they had just thrown off; one comprised of wealthy upper crust aristocrats. They viewed these individuals as having no connection with the ordinary colonist. They were considered haughty and elitist. They were too inclined to tax ordinary citizens while exempting themselves and their cronies. Laws which applied to the common farmer or business owner didn't apply to them.
It's the latter issue, unlimited terms, that I want to briefly discuss. Prior to 1947, the President of the United States could serve indefinitely. However, almost all had previously self-limited themselves to two four year terms out of tradition based on George Washington's example. The one exception was the 32nd President, Franklin D. Roosevelt (aka "FDR"). Roosevelt, a Democrat, was elected in 1933 amid the Great Depression. Through essentially a reworking of government regulations and a series of economic measures and public work projects, he staved off the collapse of the economy, at least for awhile.
However, by 1941, it was beginning to appear that the country might be starting to slip back into, at the very minimum, a recession, if not another depression when the Imperial Japanese Navy struck Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The next day America was at war with Japan and a few days later, with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and their combined allies. Although Roosevelt faced elections every four years, the American People believed that wartime was no time to change leaders. Unfortunately, he never saw the war conclusion. He died just a month shy of Germany's capitulation and four months shy of Japan's surrender.
In those days there was more participation in politics. People trusted their government (and the media). Gerrymandering hadn't quite become the science it is now, and special interests hadn't yet seized total control of the political process. People voted (61.4% in 1964 vs.55.7% in 2016). It was still possible for a "Mr. Smith" to afford to run for office and go to Washington. Compromise and civility was more the norm than the visceral extremism of today.
Of course, that's all changed now. Today, the average cost to run for a U.S. Senate seat is approximately $15 million dollars. To run for a House seat, the average cost is (ready for this?)...$2 million dollars. The reelection percentage of incumbents range from 91% in the House to 84% in the Senate and has been that way (or higher) for a very long while now, and yet the approval rating of Congress (as of February 2020) is only 23% (it's been as low as 9%). To put it another way, 77% of your employers think you're doing a lousy job and yet you're rehired almost 100% of the time. I don't know about you, but I find something very unsettling about this.
As everyone knows (or should know), the U.S. has become what our Founders feared---an oligarchy. We have a professional class of plutocrats who think they know better they we know about how to run our lives. They've created a system which makes us dependent on them. They even bribe us with our own tax dollars. They've created a surveillance state within a neo-fascist corporatocracy, and are awaiting the opportunity, be it real or manufactured, to impose a police state (the so-called "digital ID" being rolled out in Europe and Canada may be the opening salvo).
First, by establishing term limits it would restrict the amount of time an individual has to spend on raising money. Right now the average politician has to raise at least $18,000 every single day for themselves plus at least that for party leadership. On average, a politician will spend six hours of their day just on raising money. That's six hours every day not working on issues. That's six hours per day of not working for us. If their terms are limited they would be more willing to take a stand on key issues rather than hedge their bets in order not to offend some powerful special interest.
It's no secret that the very nature of politics corrupts. Even a person with the best intentions will get "dirty" sooner or later. The longer you're in office the more likely the chances. By limiting terms, it would limit the corruption. Of course, if you're dirty going in or lean that way, limiting the term won't change a thing. A limited term would also reduce the time powerful corporate interests have in gaining control over you. However, given the costs of running for office, unless you're super rich, the chances are pretty good that a least a few have already got their hooks into you.
Congress (or even state or local legislatures), ironically, don't function much like a democracy. They are seniority based with committee leaders and party whips (who ensure you vote the way you're told), and so forth. By restricting tenure, it would increase turnover of these committees and thus by necessity make them more democratic. It might also cut back on a lot of the political shenanigans played out daily behind closed doors. It forces politicians to focus on three or four key issues they intend to accomplish.
Increased turnover too would force members of Congress back to the political center (where the overwhelming majority of Americans are) and to learn once again how to compromise in a true bipartisan manner. Wouldn't a Congress without all the viral hatred and bickering be a good thing for this country? Just think of how much more could get accomplished. It could also increase the need to streamline how things are done, which just might force Congress to cut back in their involvement in our lives.
Term limits do have some drawbacks to consider too. In the process, we could lose some of very few "good" politicians as well as reduce the level of experience level of those who know how to get things done. It could also impact the working relationships which exist between politicians. Given that their time is limited, it could produce a "don't care" attitude among some. However, that would soon be thinned out by voters.
Nevertheless, despite the negatives, 84% of Americans would like to see form of term limits. So, with a majority like that, why are we still tolerating unlimited terms? Perhaps limit the Senate to a maximum of three six year terms which would be 12 years. The House could serve the same through six two year terms and expand the presidency to three four years terms. That way, everyone served equally with no more than 12 years max. If you are one of the "good" ones, that would be enough to get things done. Lastly, I would go one step further by limiting federal judges (including the Supreme Court) to 12 years as well. Too many times, they has proven to be out of touch with society.
Speaking of which, no more salaries and benefits for life. Any and all legislation must apply to elected officials, not just us. Government must also become more transparent. Partisan gerrymandering must stop. Instead, turn over redistricting to a non-partisan agency like the Federal Defense Mapping Agency or to local universities on a rotating basis. Currently districts are drawn to benefit parties, not voters. That must change.
Lastly, and this a pet peeve of mine, I'm tired of all the partisan bickering. Next to nothing gets done for the American People. Regardless of their political party, I would like to see everyone elected to office resign from the party upon their election. They are there to represent all voters, not just their political clique. In addition to their oath of office, they need to take an oath to represent their districts, their state, and the American People irrespective of any partisanship.
Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle". Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points. We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning. Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you.
Voting in Early America
Voting in Early America
No comments:
Post a Comment