Page Two

How are term limits anti-democratic? Simple: The idea is to deprive the other person of the power of their vote. Instead of restricting on the basis of sex, race, or religion, it restricts on political preference. This is one group of voters ruling against another group of voters because of their ideas. The thinking goes: "We don't like the fact that you vote for the same politicians over and over again, so, because we don't like it, we're going to restrict your option to do it. We've decided your electoral options should be limited. Rather than campaign against incumbents on a case-by-case basis, which is difficult, we'll simply, arbitrarily restrict their right to run and your right to vote for them." How is this not anti-democratic?

Not only that -- it is also stupid. In the private sector, experience is valued. The longer an employee/manager has been around, the more they know and the more effective they are. Is the public sector supposed to be different? Term limits argue that around the time a politician figures out what they need to know in order to operate effectively and have the most long-lasting consequences, we should kick them out in favor of a new, naïve freshman class. In a complex society with a complicated civic structure, this is beyond silly. This is not to argue indiscriminately in favor of all incumbents; it is also not to argue, equally indiscriminately, against all incumbents.

The most complex, underreported, and important relationship in this city is between elected officials and (more or less) permanent staff. I offer no easy analysis here. In general, city of Austin staff are more dedicated, effective, and knowledgeable than they are given credit for being. But the very nature of elected council members conceiving lofty ideals or bending to either legitimate or illegitimate political pressures and staff having to work in the trenches to implement policies creates a conflicted situation. Inherently, elected officials and staff are going to have different agendas. Elected officials probably already appear capricious and whimsical enough to long-suffering staff; to rotate them out every few years not because of their accomplishments or lack thereof but because of a misguided term-limit mandate is ridiculous.

In case you're inclined to agree with me, you should know I feel the same way about most campaign finance reform: that it is inherently anti-democratic. It pretends to encourage participation and level the playing field, but it doesn't. It empowers one segment of the population, but it clearly hopes to restrict involvement of another segment. On top of that, I think it is bogus. Money and politics is like a quart of water in a gallon balloon. You can rubber-band off one section of the balloon, but you're not really changing the relationship. Stop for a minute and think nationally: John McCain is one of those pushing this. Do you really trust him?

All these movements are based on a bedrock of moral certainty that from the left and from the right is designed to eat away at our most basic freedoms. I say "designed" because I'm just not that much of a pessimist. I actually believe in the genius of the people and the genius of democracy, and though at any time it looks like chaos is winning and fascism waiting around the corner, I don't buy it. The people will prevail, though it won't be pretty, or even readily observable. The moral certainty ranges from "I believe that gun ownership is wrong, so you shouldn't own a gun" (and we're not talking about reasonable gun control here, but active gun banishment) to "I believe that life begins at conception, so you shouldn't have an abortion." It is the "I believe, so you shouldn't do" equations, it is all over the place, and it stinks: I believe that money shouldn't play such an important part in elections, so you should be restricted in how much you contribute. I believe in animal rights, so I get to destroy your research or toss paint on your fur. I'm in favor of life, nervous about sexual freedom, and against abortion doctors, so I get to kill them and/or restrict your control over your body. I believe in my religion, so I get to impose it over yours. I don't believe in religion, so you shouldn't. I'm against meat, so you shouldn't eat it. I think smoking is bad, so you shouldn't be allowed to do it, anywhere. I'm against labor unions, so you shouldn't be allowed to organize. I abhor homosexuality, so you shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt children.

Dead rock-solid moral certainty by which the ends justify the means: In order to increase internal security to protect against terrorists and preserve our freedom, we have to restrict our liberties. In order to preserve the democracy and protect against political corruption, we have to restrict our voting rights -- campaign finance reform (we get to decide who can give and how much), term limits (stop them/me before they/I vote again).

I think the bottom line in all this is that most of us don't trust the people, and neither the right nor left trust the voters. They look at the current political condition and see stalemate and corruption.

I actually believe that the lifeblood of our country is not red, white, and blue nationalism, but the simple notion that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Constant debate, controversy, and disagreement are signs of life, not stagnation. Guiding any course through the unbelievably rocky shoals of common democracy, where everyone is supposed to be empowered, is difficult. Beyond term limits and campaign finance reform, there is an even better way to simplify the political process -- it's called fascism. But as long as we believe in and encourage the free exchange of ideas, the beast of democracy is going to look more like it is writhing in agony than sleekly moving forward. Don't be fooled.

---

After rereading last week's diatribe (as distinguished from this week's diatribe), my one regret is lumping Linda Curtis and Kirk Mitchell together. I often disagree with Mitchell, regarding him as part of the environmental extremists who look at issues in terms of black and white, friends and enemies (often friends, who because of their misguided stance on an issue, become enemies). I also think his current attempt to annul Slusher's petitions is as base and politically motivated as Curtis'. The difference is that Mitchell has a long history of principled commitment to this city, its environment and its quality of life. As much as I may disagree with him, I respect him and his positions. Curtis, as she readily admits, is simply an egotistical gadfly who cares not a whit for the city nor its political health, but simply about how much media she can garner and trouble she can cause. I'm proud I make her puke (see "Postmarks," below). My hat off in a bit of an apology to Mitchell.