From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:14:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.172925.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <92Nov16.150720edt.441@neuron.ai.toronto.edu>, steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:

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

>[Summary -- Rep. Patricia Schroeder: "If you like term limits, then 
> move to Mexico." -- cdp] 
       
>>   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.

>     It's not being backed by conservatives only -- otherwise, it
>wouldn't have passed in every state (which had it on the ballot).
 
While it is the trendy "movement" of the moment, and it's a protest
against "politics as usual" (whatever that means) for the average voter,
virtually the entire nationwide term limits movement is being bankrolled
by conservative billionaire David (?) Koch of Oklahoma.

>>   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.

>     Term limits and "social engineering" have very little in
>common.  Was the 22nd Amendment an act of social engineering? 

Yes, and a dumb one.  (A Republican one, of course; it figures.  :) )

>>   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?

>     So, is the 22nd Amendment despicably hypocritical?  What about

Pretty much.

>Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution?  What about 
>Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 and Section 3, Clause 3?  I am a
>"fellow citizen," however I'm not Constitutionally qualified to become
>a Senator because I am not 30 years old.  Regarding "protecting

That's true, but at least that's a temporary qualification, not a
permanent one.

>the electorate from their own stupidity," you might want to read the
>Federalist papers -- that's one reason why we have a representative 
>democracy.

That's true, but the founding fathers explicitly rejected term limits.

>>   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?

>     The Presidency had a two-term *tradition*.  U.S. Grant and
>Teddy Roosevelt ran for third terms, and both lost.  However,

Huh?  You'd better refresh my memory.  I seem to recall a different US
history.  Grant ran (and won) in '68 and '72.  In '76, it was Hayes v.
Tilden.  When did Grant run again?

Teddy Roosevelt didn't have 2 terms, so that would have been
tough for him to do.  He had 1 term of his own -- 1905-1909, plus part
of the William McKinley term of 1901-1905.  (I don't remember exactly
when McKinley died, though.)  Then he ran again in 1912, giving the 
election to my fellow Princetonian, Woodrow Wilson, in the only
true three way race ever until this year.

>FDR actually got elected for a third term (and then a fourth
>term).  This was not in the spirit of the original intent of
>the framers of the Constitution -- hence, the 22nd Amendment
>(I know, I'm greatly simplifying this...).  Similarly, having

You're oversimplifying to the point of being wrong.  The 22nd amendment
was, pure and simple, a posthumous slap at FDR by the Republicans.
Nothing more.  It had little to do with the "spirit of the original
intent" (a redundancy if I ever heard one.)

>many "tenured" representatives in the House is not really what the
>framers envisioned.  (It's a different story for the Senate.)

Then why did some of the greatest of our national figures stay around
the house forever?  From Webster to Clay, this was the *rule*, not the
exception.

Check out reelection rates back in the early days of this country --
they hovered around 80%.  Hardly this mandate for  "citizen politicians"
you're claiming.

>>   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. 

>     Oh, the proverbial "slippery slope" argument.  Look, if one
>really loves one's representative, one should encourage him/her to 
>run for the Senate when his/her limit expires.

That's not much of an argument.  What about when I like my Senator too?
I don't see why I should give him up just because you don't like him,
and can't field a candidate worth diddly to run against him.

If the playing field isn't level, the solution is to level it, not
eliminate it.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc