Posted by
Andrews on Monday, April 20, 2009 1:34:41 PM
Many people argue that our problems stem from the phenomenon of "legislator for life" which has arisen in recent times, arguing that our system is not so much broken as it is infested with a new sort of pseudo-royalty who are causing all our headaches. It is this philosophy which lies at the base of the term limit movement and also behind ideas such as Obama's prohibition of his staff form taking lobbying positions. It is a movement which has been adopted by both sides of the aisle recently, mainly due to public disapproval of congress reaching unprecedented levels, but it is one which largely started on the right and remains, mostly, a conservative phenomenon. The only problem is, it is a philosophy inimical to conservative beliefs.
Conservatism, at its root, believes in a "government of laws, not of men". In other words, a government where individual office holders are largely irrelevant. Traditionally, it has been the left which has adopted expansive, "compassionate" states which rely upon the "right people" holding office. The right, by and large, has endorsed limited, constitutional government, leaving little room for individual desires or biases to influence the direction of the government.
Which makes this movement all the more puzzling. By essentially giving up the fight to limit government, and instead focusing on getting out the "bad people" it seems the right has abandoned its principles and accepted the left's concept of government as the province of individual whim. It may not be as obvious an abdication, but it is as drastic a change as if the pro-life movement stopped arguing to an end to abortion and instead started fighting solely how clinics are licensed.
Of course some on the right will argue that this is but one step in reforming government, and, as I usually advocate gradual reform, I would be happy were that true. However, it does not accomplish even what it intends. Not only does it manage to eliminate good politicians with bad, but to the degree it prevents the elected officials form developing enough experience to wield power effectively, it transfers the locus of power form elected officials to unelected bureaucrats. As a consequence, it may end up making ti harder, not easier, to strip the government of its excess authority.
No, the real solution is obvious, and has nothing to do with getting "good people" into office. Just as the free market can channel the worst impulses into productive action, so too a limited, constitutional government can survive even the worst office holder. What we need is not to limit the terms of office holders, or to make sure we get "good" people, nor even to vote out all incumbents. What we need is quite simply to limit our government's power to the bare minimum necessary. Only by keeping the government small (and preferably local) can we hope to create a government which does not rely upon getting the right people in office.
POSTSCRIPT
The following posts seem relevant to this post:
My Vision of Government
My Vision of Government Part II
The Nature of Evil
Planning For Imperfection
Transparency, Corruption and Reform
Why Term Limits Will Fail (And Should)
I am sure there are others, but these seem the most significant.