Politics

There is a chronic problem with politics. It's the power of the incumbent. Once someone is elected to office, the chances of the candidate being unseated by a challenger decreases with each successful reelection. The consensus is, that this often leads to complacency, to laziness, and even to graft.

More than one state has dealt with this concern by limiting the number of terms an official may serve. After so many years, you aren't eligible for re-election. So far, except for the presidency, this effort has failed at the Federal level.

Political observers, however, have noted these limits are not entirely a good thing. Edmund Burke pointed out that skillful governance is a trade, a profession even; there is much to learn about running government. It takes at least two years for most elected freshmen to learn even the basics of a job. To learn enough to move into a position of real effectiveness may take 10 years or more.

Currently in Louisiana, our own term limits have just started kicking in, producing a madhouse turnover of the legislative branch, and a loss of all real seniority. The consensus among the pundits is that the winners here will be the lobbyists: they are the only ones left with any long-term experience in state policy. Shifting from incumbent to lobbyists, somehow, does not seem to be what reformers were aiming for.

Another problem is the nasty partisanship we see. The infighting has reached levels not seen for decades, to the point that effective governance has become a side-show, a secondary concern. Everyone is so busy trying to make the other guy wrong, that no one knows what is right anymore. At a point that the Soviet Union no longer divides the world, at a time that America could be leading the world in fighting oppression and suffering, we are simply fighting with each other instead.

Let me offer an idea that could address both problems: Extensible Limits. After the normal time of limited service, a candidate might be allowed to run again-- IF the body in which he/she has served concurs, (by private vote of course). Each re-election would become increasingly difficult; the first Extension might require a 50% vote, the next, an additional 3%, and a required 3% increase for each successive re-election.

For the chief officer, perhaps the House and the Senate would both have to grant permission.

The impact from this could be large. 'Good old boys' who cut self-serving deals-- and who are not above cutting a few corners in the process-- will quickly find themselves unable to stand for reelection. Those who choose to do the real work of democracy, cobbling together coalitions, and negotiating to identify consensus opinions, will find their influence constantly increasing.

And the Good ol' boys will find quickly find themselves in the political unemployment line. The damage they cause will be very limited.

Only those elected officials who show true leadership, those who reach across the aisle, those who build consensus, those who focus on agreement, not acrimony-- those will be the people will move into increasing positions of power. And the number of their terms will directly correlate with the vision and skill they bring to the job.