Are term limits for legislators really the problem?
Several opinion pieces and comments have recently been published in regard to
Missouri’s legislative term limits. But 75 percent of Missourians will not easily change their minds about this constitutional mandate.
Politicians of all stripes cautiously vent about the grassroots prescription for the politics that ail us. Locally, we castigate term limits, oblivious to the fact that our local electorate supported the measure. Pontificators with credentials greater than mine bemoan the shallowness of a process oft termed “not for those of weak constitution.”
University of Missouri-Columbia political science professor David Webber comes the closest to an objective treatise on the matter of term limits, the call for the previous question and the pride of the Senate, known as the filibuster. However, he leaves the reader with a sense of hopelessness rather than the wisdom that most of life’s conundrums ebb and flow as they cycle through time. Some assuaging of our term limit laws is in order. As bearers of the public discussion,we owe much to those who may consider our musings.
Much blame for Columbia’s poor faring in this year’s General Assembly is available for all. The field combatants displayed conduct that was less than civil. Some conduct was mean, some devious and some downright ludicrous. However, I believe this to be a symptom not of a dysfunctional legislature but of the populace in general.
Many of us are angry and vindictive for no good reason. My office is located in an old middle-class neighborhood that is now considered “at risk.” Over the past 23 years I have met and observed many folks whose lives seem to be endless chapters of “I got dumped on” drama. It occurred to me as one of these people bemoaned a “new” misfortune that, in reality, things were good for that person. However, with no appreciation for the goodness of life they participated in, another chapter of misfortune was inevitable. Our generation is one of spoiled brats. Regardless of the problems we face or the shortcomings of humankind, we have it swell. Term limits are not the problem.
Several of our local legislative contingents, in the absence of an electoral majority, conveniently stood on the ideals of academic freedom and unfettered scientific research rather than the grassroots wisdom of “minimizing our losses.” Rarely do politics and idealism combine to produce a tasteful concoction. Institutions of higher learning and theology are the realms of the idealist. The art of compromise is our alternative to the physical resolution of competing interests. In the absence of overwhelming agreement, the ideal is only of value as a goal to plod toward. Today a step in the right direction brings us closer than we were yesterday. An eminent danger of our times is not the sophomoric antics of a layman’s legislature but the substitution of an individual person’s wisdom for the electorate.
The vociferous protest in regard to the expanded use of the filibuster and the call for the previous question misses the target. The true complaint is similar to that of a child who cries “unfair” when his behavior is corrected by responsible parents. Rather than consider his own conduct, the child points out the shortcomings of less-than-perfect parents. Accordingly, we are angry about our public reprimand by fellow Missourians. We blame term limits, a right-wing fringe or failed leadership. Much courage and honesty will be necessary for us to gaze in the mirror.
All is not lost. I hope a cooling-down between now and the next legislative session will see the restoration of several million research dollars to Ellis Fischel. Maybe we will be done with our tantrum and accept the governor’s pork regardless of motive. By the way the sight of politics and sausage making is not the most disturbing element of the process. It is the shrill gooshing and crushing of flesh against unmalleable objects that is so terribly offensive.