Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg")
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:16:07 GMT

  A couple of otherwise "conservative" readers assert their belief
in term limitations: 

>>     It looks as though some Democrats are beginning to adopt the
>>"America, love it or leave it" slogan.  On CNN's Capital Gang,
>>Paul Gigot articulated the case for congressional term limits,
>>to which special guest Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D) replied, "If you 
>>like term limits, then move to Mexico."  (I guess elected officials
>>are only allowed to serve one term in Mexico.)
>
>Great!  Now you've given me something else to disagree with Pat Schroeder
>on.  Thanks a lot!
>
>Seriously though, I've wondered what impact the recently passed legislation
>in several states will have on the operation of Congress.  Since the choice
>leadership positions are based at least partially on seniority, aren't
>those states putting themselves at a disadvantage?  I've always favored
>term limits but it seems to me that they should be applied across the
>board.

  Perhaps I've missed the definitive television, print, or usenet
argument for term limitations, but I remain unconvinced as to
its merits as well as surprised that so many "conservatives"
are backing it.

  To the extent that modern, or neo-, conservatism has a
coherent central philosophy, it would seem to me to consist
in a belief that citizens should be unhindered by big government
in the economic and political (if not social, sexual, etc. ) realms.
It is the "liberals", or so goes the diatribe, who are always
trying to use laws and regulations to effect "social engineering",
and they must be stopped.

  It strikes me as somewhat inconsistent, if not despicably
hypocritical, for "conservatives" to urge laws which say,
in effect, "you can't vote for the people you want to
vote for".  Either citizens should be allowed to elect
whichever fellow citizens they please, according to democratic 
voting practices, or not.  And if not, then why stop with
term limitations?  Why not other laws which "protect" the
electorate from their own stupidity?

  It seems that many "conservatives" are opting for term
limits not out of principle, but rather out of the simple
frustration and nastiness that comes from their recognition
of the fact that their ideological enemies have majorities
in both houses of Congress.  I.e., the Republicans,
intellectually dishonest libertarians, and further-right
wackos just want to get rid of the Democrats, and can't
do it through more purely democratic means; they therefore
resort to a "legislate Ted Kennedy out of existence" approach.
It's understandable, but evil and dangerous.  For we all
have frustrations with democracy and with the slow ways
of a republic.  And if we indulge *your* anti-democratic
desires, what will you think when we indulge *mine*?
What about laws against the election of people who
don't have IQ's over 130 or advanced degrees?  Or against
the election of people who believe too strongly or appeal
too loudly to ancient and dogmatic religions which I
find implausible?  Or ban political ads which appeal
to an overly simplistic and slimy version of patriotism?

  I think it's a dangerous road you're heading down.
Leave the power in the hands of the electorate, and
*convince* us to throw the bums out -- don't wield
"the coercive power of the state" at us to "force"
us to throw out them out. 

  -- Evan


-- 

Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-5182      steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
Dept of Computer Science          steeg@ai.utoronto    (other Bitnet)
University of Toronto,            steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc