POOR RUDY Giuliani. Politically, the Republican mayor of New York City has been done in by a scheme that even he had embraced: term limits. Giuliani's current situation exposes the fallacy of these limits and should make voters think twice about this issue.
After the attacks on the World Trade Center, Giuliani has been praised universally for maintaining his composure and resolve throughout the crisis. Former ABC White House Correspondent Sam Donaldson compared Giuliani to World War II hero Gen. George Patton. French headlines refer to him as "Rudy the Rock."
But this rock will be leaving the mayor's office in December. Thanks to term limits enacted in 1993 and 1996, mayors of New York City are only allowed to serve two four-year terms.
Even in a moment of crisis, voters in New York City aren't allowed the option of re-electing their mayor. Even when, according to a Marist poll, an overwhelming 62 percent of voters believe that Giuliani is doing an "excellent" job in the aftermath of the tragedy, his name is not allowed to be on the ballot in November.
|
This issue is still being debated nationally. In 1997, a vote in Congress on a term limit amendment failed to muster the necessary two-thirds majority.
The most common argument for term limits is that of preventing careerism in politicians. Some claim that because politicians are driven by their own motivations, they become corrupt and alienated from their constituents. But careerism also can be a sign of leadership and experience in politicians, and forcing them out can bring in inexperienced, unproven legislators.
The important question is, why do we need term limits to prevent political careerism? If a politician has become corrupt and out-of-touch with his constituents, then it's up to the voters not to re-elect him. Seats in Congress aren't lifetime appointments; voters have the opportunity to elect someone different every two or six years.
On the other hand, if a politician has worked hard and represented his constituents throughout the years, we shouldn't deny him the opportunity to run again. More importantly, we shouldn't deny the voters the opportunity to re-elect him.
Opponents also like to point to politicians like Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA). When elected in 1994, Nethercutt promised only to serve three terms. In 2000, when he sought re-election, the opposition vilified him, putting up billboards and signs proclaiming, "Thanks for keeping your word!" However, this wasn't important enough to keep him from being re-elected. Nethercutt's constituents supported him over his opponent by a safe margin of 18 percent. If he still won re-election easily, who are we to question voters' judgment?
One of the most popular arguments for term limits is that so many Americans support it. Last January, a McLaughlin Group poll showed that 69 percent of Americans support term limits, compared with only 24 percent who oppose them.
But even this contradicts arguments made for term limits. Conservative columnist George Will, in supporting term limits, asserted that enacting term limits would make lawmakers "less subservient to public opinion" ("Open Wide for Term Limits," April 21, 1996).
If we're going to demand that our lawmakers be less beholden to public interest, then we shouldn't let the majority opinion sway Congress' judgment on this issue.
Proponents also show that turnover rates in Congress have dropped since the 19th century, and therefore term limits are merited. But this doesn't mean that politicians have become more corrupt. In fact, average tenure rates for congressmen are barely above the 12 year limit that the term limit amendment would have mandated.
John Armor, a professor of constitutional law at Yale, asserts in his online commentary "Congress for Life" that Washington and the founding fathers "believed in 'rotation in office,'" and purports this as a case for term limits.
The founding fathers did take up this issue at the Constitutional convention in 1787 and soundly rejected the idea. James Madison, in fact, warned of too large a turnover rate in Congress. In The Federalist Papers no. 53, he writes, "The greater the proportion of new members and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they will be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them."
Legislators should not assume that they know better than voters do. The message term limits supporters have is simple: We can't trust the voters to decide who is qualified enough to stay in office. In that case, why not pass a law saying that convicted felons can't run for office? Why not require a college degree from all members of Congress?
These ideas unnecessarily restrict the right of the people to vote for whomever the want to. Instead of making arbitrary rules designed to eliminate careerism, we should let the voters decide who should represent them.
(Brian Cook is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at bcook@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 30 minutes agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
