Nov 252007
….against presidential nepotism? As unhappy as I am about the Oval Office being a hot potato between two families for potentially 28 years, I’m not sure we need to solve this problem by mucking around with the Constitution. Then again, I’m even against term limits — if people want to keep voting in the same doofuses again and again, who are we to tell them they shouldn’t?
I like to think of term limits as something the Founding Fathers would have added if they’d gotten around to it — they didn’t exactly have the highest respect for the intelligence of the electorate. I agree with you on the amendment, though. That’s just silly.
Who are we? Non-doofuses, that’s who. (polishes Elitism badge)
But yes, dumb amendment.
And the name on the article pretty much says it all for me (especially since the site is saying I’ve used up my free articles, even though I don’t believe I’ve ever been to the Financial Times Web site on this computer). If the order was reversed (Clinton, Bush, Clinton, potentially Bush), Grover Norquist wouldn’t be batting an eye this time around, just like he didn’t in 2000.
Well, of course, he does specifically say that the amendment, even if it were law right now, wouldn’t prevent Hillary from running for office. There’s a certain sense to setting that sort of rule; it wouldn’t keep the child of a mayor from entering politics, just from immediately taking over that same mayorship. Indeed, it suggests a kind of sensible extension of term limits: if you’ve reached the end of your limits, you can’t just have your husband/brother/child/etc. take the position and de facto extend it.
I’m not saying that it’s necessary, just that it’s not immediately idiotic. I do think it’s stupid for it to specify anti-nepotism for state and local positions; there’s no reason for the federal government to set limits on state offices.
But it is rather telling that, as Clinton’s campaign gears up, Norquist is suddenly very concerned with dynasties, a concern he didn’t hold at all when he helped W get elected.
>>> There’s a certain sense to setting that sort of rule; it wouldn’t keep the child of a mayor from entering politics, just from immediately taking over that same mayorship.
But, even if this were necessary or appropriate, I’m not sure not being allowed to take over immediately is especially meaningful. There were 13 years between the mayorships of Richards J. & M. Daley, a quarter of the time since Richard J. first took office, but it’s still considered a dynastic position, if not the canonical dynastic position.
Yeah, this amendment is silly.
Re Term limits: As I think I’ve indicated in this comment box before, we already have term limits in this country – it’s called voting. It is ludicrous to throw around the ideas of term limits when turnout is so low. Get 90% or more (or even 75%) of people voting, and if the same demonstrable incumbency advantage is there, THEN start CONSIDERING term limits.