NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/politics/misc/60462

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 6.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!relay.cs.toronto.edu!neuron.ai.toronto.edu!ai.toronto.edu!steeg
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: [e-mail] ("Evan W. Steeg")
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:41:26 GMT
Lines: 112

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>>   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).

  Yes, I know.  It is not ideologically surprising when "liberals"
support it -- as they are supposedly the masters of coercive
laws and undue constraints on political and economic choice.
It *is* somewhat ideologically surprising that "conservatives"
support it, for the converse reasons.

  Of course, *pragmatically*, one might expect "liberals" to
be against it -- because it's mostly liberal democratic congressional
and senate powermongers who'll be turned out -- and hence
conservatives to favor it.  Now, on the "meta" level, it should
surprise nobody that the liberals are not being very clever or
pragmatic while the conservatives have a great nose for the self-interest
gradient on this issue.

>
>>   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?

  Wrong.  Yes.  Many of the Constitutional Amendments are acts
of social engineering.  Of course -- giving the right to vote
and other "new rights" to formerly disenfranchised groups?
Banning and then unbanning the sale of liquor?  Social engineering,
if it means anything, means using the powers of the state or
other powerful entities to make people act, en masse, in a way
differently from how they would freely act.  Thus, term limitations.
People are naturally inclined to vote Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd
into office for a seemingly infinite number of terms.  The social
engineers behind term limits have decided that the electorate
does not know what it is doing, is not acting in a proper manner,
and therefore should not be allowed to vote freely.

  IMHO, social engineering is not always a bad thing.  I was only
noting with some disgust the fact that many of the self-appointed
voices of conservatism and liberty in the US, who routinely
rail against the "social engineering" of the "liberals"/"socialists"/
"secular humanists", etc., are behaving in an utterly hypocritical
and narrowly self-serving and anti-freedom manner in supporting
term limits.

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

  Thank you, I have read the Federalist papers, and enjoyed
it thoroughly.  And term limits are trying to take away not
just the "democracy" part of our system, but a little of the
"representative" part as well.

 As for the age requirements, I don't find them ideologically
or practically very compelling, nor especially odious.  The
term limits will eat a *much* larger chunk of democratic choice
out of our system.  But if you wanted to strike the age requirements,
you'd get no opposition from me.  Ditto for the requirement that
the President be born in the US and/or of US citizen parents.

 And, look, the fact that they're being approved in referenda
all over the country is not at all an argument in their favor.
It's easy to imagine other starkly anti-democratic policies
becoming popular enough to gain a plurality of "yes" votes
in a state referendum.  (New York and Massachusetts are pretty
damned liberal-Democratic, right?  What about a referendum
on a proposed law that would ban the Republican party from
running in elections?  Or maybe that pesky Right-To-Life party?

 You (if you support term limitations) are saying to me, "We don't
trust you to vote in a sensible way".  Fine, I don't trust
most of the rednecks in rural Georgia, or Orange County, CA
to vote in a sensible way.  But how much state-coercive power
do we want to give each other over other peoples' right to elect
their chosen representatives?

  Evan


--

Evan W. Steeg [phone]      [e-mail] (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
Dept of Computer Science          [e-mail]    (other Bitnet)
University of Toronto,            [e-mail] (EAN X.400)
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg