Today must be a “Jamelle loves the Washington Post day,” since this is the second post where I’m focusing on something from the WaPo’s editorial page. This time, it’s George Will’s column on Sen. Russ Feingold’s proposal to alter the 17th Amendment by requiring a special election in the event of a Senate vacancy, thus taking the process out of the hands of the governor. Will has an old-school conservative’s distrust of mass democracy, and as such, isn’t terribly thrilled with the proposal. What’s more, Will is dissatisfied with the 17th Amendment itself; by his lights, the 17th Amendment corrupted the process by expanding the number of entry points for various – usually unscrupulous – interest groups. For Will, the best solution to how to deal with the possibility of another Blago is to simply repeal the 17th Amendment and return to the pre-progressive status quo, where senators were elected by the state legislators.
I have a response to this (surprise, I don’t agree), but it isn’t nearly as thorough as Publius’ able take, in which he (she?) critiques Will’s argument, and explains why Feingold’s proposal is probably our best bet for avoiding a repeat of the Blago/Burris saga:
The point of requiring elections is not because people always make wise decisions. The point is that it’s the most legitimate method and the single-best protection against corruption.
The problem with governor appointments is a structural one – one that goes beyond the individual moral failings of people like Blago. We currently have a vacancy appointment system in which the Blagos of the world have incentives to do funny business (demanding money; extracting concessions, etc.). As long as the incentives are there, future Blagos will inevitably reappear.
Providing state legislatures this authority raises all the same problems. In appointing Senators, state legislators would have all kinds of incentives to engage in corruption in exchange for a Senate appointment. And because those incentives are there – and because we must assume people will be bad when thinking of constitutional structure – corruption would inevitably occur.
Better to let us poor members of the rabble decide. Yes, state legislatures may be harder to bribe than a single governor. But it’s still infinitely easier than trying to bribe the public as a whole.
I would only add that if we’re really looking to repeal a Constitutional amendment, we could do worse than to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which restricts a president from serving more than two terms. A bill repealing the 22nd Amendment was actually introduced early on this congressional session by Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY-16), but it almost certainly won’t get any traction. Which is a shame, because repealing the 22nd is a pretty good idea on the merits.
For starters, the amendment stifles the will of the voters; perhaps I’m naive/idealistic/too young, but I don’t understand why voters shouldn’t have the choice of electing a president for a third or even fourth term, especially if said president is popular and successful. While in theory a president could serve indefinitely, a combination of political and institutional custom, public opinion, and – I don’t know – reality would almost certainly prevent said outcome.
What’s more, the current two term limit is demonstrably harmful to the quality of governance; it practically ensures that a president’s second term will be dramatically less effective than his first (lame duckitude). Added on top of that is the fact the status quo sets up incentives for ignoring public opinion, since when it comes down to it, a president in his second term is no longer accountable to the electorate. At that point, the only thing keeping the executive in check is Congress and political realities. But if Congress isn’t oppositional, and if the president is unconcerned with the fate of his party, then even those checks fall away, leaving us with a president virtually unencumbered by the concerns of the nation (i.e. George W. Bush). Which isn’t exactly a great place to be, all things considered.
Hmmm….that’s interesting about the 22nd Amendment. Though I would have a problem with repealing it because I generally view the populace as stupider than you do (or at least you won’t describe them with the same kind of language I do). So, while I agree “reality” as you put it would prevent a terrible president from being elected too many times, if a few factors had been slightly different (like if the economy had been able to stay afloat just a little while longer or something) I think we could have elected Bush a third time. That would have been extremely damaging and I wonder if its worth the risk…I dunno…or what if we get someone more competently evil than him…JAMELLE GODDAMMIT GEORGE WASHINGTON DID IT WHY ISN’T IT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU
Hmmmm, the thought of Bush/Cheney ’08 makes me oppose any getting rid of the 22nd Ammendment. And since the executive has just experienced an upswing in getting stronger, having the same person in power for years on end just doesn’t seem like a good idea. It is always tempting when your guy is in office to want them to stay forever and ever, but it’s a check on the executive and it keeps the hope alive for those opposed to a president, that a few years and they will be rid of him/her.
Jamelle your standing on the repeal of the 22nd amendment worries me deeply. Considering we just witnessed Hugo Chavez getting rid of the constitutional 2 term bar in Venezuela in the hopes of ruling “until 2049″, the fact that such an idea could be embraced by anyone with a brain of their own is dispiriting. Tocqueville warned that the American President could turn the entire government bureaucracy into “an electoral machine”. This is what Chavez just did, he spent countless billions of dollars from our oil money to get re-elected. (I am Venezuelan…). Maintaining Chavez in power for 10 years has allowed him to control the courts, the bureaucracy, Congress, the oil industry, etc. Too much power is now in his hands and he wields it to continue to win elections. A term limit would have been the perfectly democratic way of stopping him, but now we dont even have that.
You have to also appreciate the value of alternating the head of government every 4 or 8 years. Not only does it freshen up government with new ideas from a new President, but it also re-inspires the nation. Usually a person in power for a long time is wary of reforms or new political initiatives. Not to mention that power corrupts people and makes them greedy.
With regards to the supposed “benefit” of making 2nd term presidents more accountable I heartily disagree. This would effectively take away the Presidents independence and would make him focus on re-election, again, instead of actual governance. I am already disgusted by the permanent campaign presidency that currently exists (the fact that Obama is visiting states that he wants to turn Blue in 12′ already is evidence of this). I think that the second term releases a President to actually pursue policies that could be great but are not popular (Clinton’s TANF and Budget cuts came on his second term –granted much of them due to the Republican control of Congress but still).
If the people love a President so much that they would like him to continue in power, as they did with Roosevelt, then all they have to do is elect their appointed successor. In 2000 they did; Americans voted to elect Gore afted Clinton left with a 60+ approval rating. He is not President for other well known reasons. People need to believe that one person doesnt have all the answers, that they dont have a monopoly of ideas, that new leadership can bring better ideas and better governance, even if you think that the current President is perfect, there is also the possibility that there is a better President ahead. The strenght of this American democracy is its ability to renew itself, especially in the highest place of all; the Presidency.
I could say other stuff but I gotta run….
Perhaps it would be better to eliminate the lame-duckitude by compressing the time between the presidential election and inauguration day. An alternative to this would be a constitutional amendment restricting the powers of lame ducks and defining maladministration as one of those “high crimes and misdemenors”.
Yes, and as everyone knows, up until 1951 the United States was held in the grip of the Democratic-Republican party’s political machinations. No wait, that didn’t happen.
Why Venezuela would be an appropriate comparison for a democracy that didn’t have term limits for the executive until 1951, but whose presidents voluntarily limited themselves to two terms confuses me.
Robert Heinlein had it right. A presendent selected by pure qualification and having no choice but to serve. The first qualification being the selectee couldn’t want to be president, as this was/is a sign of insanity.
“Why Venezuela would be an appropriate comparison for a democracy that didn’t have term limits for the executive until 1951, but whose presidents voluntarily limited themselves to two terms confuses me.”
Maybe it’s precisely BECAUSE of what happened between 1940 and 1945?
What’s so confusing here?
FDR broke the precedent with a fascist-like power grab. Gee, there’s a war in Europe. Great excuse. What do we call it these days? Ah, yeah “the politics of fear.” Why didn’t any president before him think of that one?
Diego is right on the money. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. If you cleverly pay off 51% with the money of a 49% you can stay in office forever (or at least until the whole country collapses.) What’s so hard to understand here?
We not only need to keep term limits for the President, we need term limits for Congressmen and Senators, who are corrupting our country as we speak.
Less power, less corruption, more liberty.
The problem with repealing the 22nd is that if the majority of the public really like someone who is making terrible decisions (because they are sheep and follow the cult of personality) then there is no plausible way to get back on course and repair the country. Limiting to 2 terms ensures that someone can’t just buy elections over and over again through timely hand-outs and a winning smile.