Supporter Inquiry
I received an inquiry from a VOID supporter asking why VOID has no endorsement on its web site for term limits. Following was my reply:
The reason is very simple. VOID does not advocate for or against term limits. VOID does not advocate for or against the war in Iraq, for or against abortion or a million other issues that divide Americans. VOID does not advocate for any issue except using anti-incumbent power of the voters to force greater responsibility, accountability, and transparency by government toward the people who elect it. Greater responsibility, accountability, and transparency is something virtually all Americans would like to see. It is a unifying cause. Term limits is a dividing issue. VOID's sole mission is to inform the electorate that the anti-incumbent vote is the only way such a change can occur peacefully.
Once, far greater accountability and responsibility to the electorate is achieved, then the people can hold a referendum on whether term limits
should be passed. But, as long as we have the corrupt incumbents now in office insuring government serves their reelection instead of the people, term limits cannot be achieved. It cannot be achieved because it is not in the self-interest of elected politicians in debt to special interests to allow it to come to pass.
I reminded our staff just yesterday of what our narrowly defined mission is, so that we can stay on course. The minute VOID begins advocating issues not found in our mission statement, will be the minute VOID loses its capacity to unite voters from all parties, and previously non-voters, alike. VOID is a non-partisan, all partisan organization. Term limits would favor the Democrats and our endorsement of term limits would kill the anti-incumbent movement's universal appeal to voters across party lines. The Democratic and Republican Parties thrive on dividing Americans. VOID thrives on the hope of uniting Americans toward greater democracy, not less.
Comments
I agree. Term limits are unnecessary, divisive, and distracting.
Term limits are unnecessary since voters have the power to vote out irresponsible incumbents.
Voters, by simply doing what they are supposed to do, by simply voting out irresponsible incumbents is all that is needed.
However, the newcomers that want to pass common-sense reforms are always outnumbered by incumbents that perpetuate the status quo.
Newcomers need the voters help. The voters must realize that it is not as important who you vote for as it what they do after being elected. Will whoever is elected have any incentive to pass badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms? Will incumbents allowed it?
That is why it seems like politicians' brain turns to jelly soon after being elected. That is why they suddenly forget their campaign promises. Newcomers are tempted, pressued, and threatened by incumbents to accept the status quo, or be shunned, isolated, and lose their party support.
Thus, the incumbents have things just they way they like them. Re-election rates are high. It's very difficult to unseat an incumbent. No job should have so much job-security that the employee grows so arrogant to beleive they are superior or above the law. But, that is the type of government we have. It is PC (Political Class) people, that have a total disrespect of the voters, and believe voters deserve what they get for allowing it; empower them to continue to use and abuse the voters.
No reforms will be possible until the people vote out (or recall) all irresponsible incumbents, vote in newcomers that reject the status quo, do so repeatedly, always, until voters have the much needed transparency to see exactly who to hold accountable. Unfortunately, voters can't easily tell who is or is not responsible. They all look the other way, and don't try to police their own ranks or point out corruption. The bar is set so very low. There may be very few (if any) incumbents that even remotely come close to being responsible and accountable.
If there were some responsible incumbents, who are they? Why is it no one can even list more than two or three? And, after they see their voting records, and some of the things they do and say, they no longer feel like defending their selections? Perhaps it is because there are none?
Posted by: d.a.n | February 6, 2006 3:18 PM
Dan, I still believe most challengers for federal office seek election for the best motives and intentions. If elected, their motives and intentions are then hit smack in the face by the reality that if they hope to accomplish anything at all for their constituents, they must play the corruption and power abuse gave as senior incumbents dictate. If they don't, they will receive no support from their party or the leadership, and end up with nothing to show their constituents for having been elected.
We agree entirely that the method for voters to alter this situation is with a healthy registration of voters who are dissatisfied with the system as is, and moving them to vote out the irresponsible, the corrupt incumbents, and the abusers of the power of their office.
Posted by: David R. Remer | February 8, 2006 3:28 AM