It's Burke's point that a free man shouldn't have the right to sell himself into slavery; electorates shouldn't have the right to vote themselves into dictatorship... Or weaken democracy the way that entrenched governments can do with over a decade in power.
There's a good case to be made for this, especially in polities with a more fluid style of coalition politics. However, in a rigidified two-party system, it's too much like directly contradicting the voters. Yes, the case is weak (we're contradicting their choice of president) but it is at least intellectually defensible: individuals may be corruptible in office, and should be disbarred after a fixed term, but policy platforms and ideologies can and should be permitted to stay.
The question, of course, is which individuals: the whole cabinet? But that removes a valuable career ladder: I would like to think that the next prime minister had served in at least two of the 'great offices of state' before entering number Ten.
What we're really talking about is a crude mechanism for reducing patronage, which tends to be more of a person-to-person thing than an institutional malaise. At least it seems to be in Britain*: if you look elsewhere you'll see that political and administrative entities that run on patronage, particularly where there are financial interests involved, are doomed to spiral of moral and fiscal decay. This is especially true where there is a 'clientilist' bias in policy-making - rewarding client groups like the elected representative's home village, tribe or ethnic group, favoured industries, campaign donors and subsidy cows - as a policy goal in of itself without regard to the national welfare. If this gains support with the electorate - who are voting to bribe themselves with their own money - then no legal or constitutional 'quick fix' like a term limit will save them.
*Excluding DEFRA, the former Ministry of Agriculture.
Personally I'm against term limits (and for that matter the kind of origin limit that currently prohibits Schwarzenegger from running for president); if the will of the population is really that X should be their leader, then X should be their leader.
(Of course, there are other requirements: you need to have free and fair elections, and they need to be structured in a sane way; and it might be possible to argue that you can't in fact consider all these things in isolation. But I'm more interested here in people's view of the basic principal(s), rather than the nitty-gritty of how you produce a real functioning government.)
He doesn't want to be served strychnine by the Republicans, who have stood behind him and therefore are tarred if he turns out to be a nincompoop. He's much more controllable than a comparable Independent would be. Besides, there's Jeb and the twins still to come...
Intriguingly, Dubya gives every indication that he doesn't much care what his party thinks. If he listens to anyone, it's Cheney and something he calls God.
Now, if he were Prime Minister in the UK, his party could soon fix that; in the USA, once he's President if the party disowns him he becomes an independent and remains President rather than the party getting to replace him.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 12:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 12:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 12:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 01:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 02:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 03:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 01:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 02:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 05:01 pm (UTC)There's a good case to be made for this, especially in polities with a more fluid style of coalition politics. However, in a rigidified two-party system, it's too much like directly contradicting the voters. Yes, the case is weak (we're contradicting their choice of president) but it is at least intellectually defensible: individuals may be corruptible in office, and should be disbarred after a fixed term, but policy platforms and ideologies can and should be permitted to stay.
The question, of course, is which individuals: the whole cabinet? But that removes a valuable career ladder: I would like to think that the next prime minister had served in at least two of the 'great offices of state' before entering number Ten.
What we're really talking about is a crude mechanism for reducing patronage, which tends to be more of a person-to-person thing than an institutional malaise. At least it seems to be in Britain*: if you look elsewhere you'll see that political and administrative entities that run on patronage, particularly where there are financial interests involved, are doomed to spiral of moral and fiscal decay. This is especially true where there is a 'clientilist' bias in policy-making - rewarding client groups like the elected representative's home village, tribe or ethnic group, favoured industries, campaign donors and subsidy cows - as a policy goal in of itself without regard to the national welfare. If this gains support with the electorate - who are voting to bribe themselves with their own money - then no legal or constitutional 'quick fix' like a term limit will save them.
*Excluding DEFRA, the former Ministry of Agriculture.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-25 04:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 04:04 pm (UTC)If he could stand for another term, perhaps being the least popular unimpeached President in living memory would worry him more.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 04:18 pm (UTC)Personally I'm against term limits (and for that matter the kind of origin limit that currently prohibits Schwarzenegger from running for president); if the will of the population is really that X should be their leader, then X should be their leader.
(Of course, there are other requirements: you need to have free and fair elections, and they need to be structured in a sane way; and it might be possible to argue that you can't in fact consider all these things in isolation. But I'm more interested here in people's view of the basic principal(s), rather than the nitty-gritty of how you produce a real functioning government.)
what incentive is there now
Date: 2007-08-20 08:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 09:11 pm (UTC)Now, if he were Prime Minister in the UK, his party could soon fix that; in the USA, once he's President if the party disowns him he becomes an independent and remains President rather than the party getting to replace him.
I think the British way is better.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 04:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-20 09:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-21 08:54 am (UTC)