How often do we hear a political ad without questioning what we're hearing? Sure, we may dismiss what a candidate for the "other" party is saying simply because they're the "other guys", but do we ever question our candidate's ads? Do we ever dig into the claims and determine whether there is any truth to them? Recently ads for Republican Governor Jim Pillen have been claiming that his opponent, Democrat Lynne Walz, has a plan to automatically raise property taxes every year. When I first heard this, my bullshit detector was in the red — I couldn't imagine that any candidate for office in Nebraska, where property taxes are the hot button issue, would have any such plan. After I watched the ad a few times I noticed that there were several legislative bills and a Nebraska Examiner article listed in small type in the corner as the source of the claims in the ad. I found the text of the bills and the article and was not surprised to find that they did not support the assertion that Walz had a plan to raise property taxes. Walz was the chairperson of the legislature's Education Committee. The bills the ad referenced changed the formula for state aid to school districts. She was quoted in the article as opposing the 3% cap on school district budget increases as too low. Doing that research required nothing more than an internet connection and about 20 minutes of my time.
On the other side, there is an ad where it is alleged that Republican Senator Pete Ricketts, who is running for re-election, saw his net worth increase by 29%. Of course the conclusion that we are meant to reach is that he achieved this by nefarious means. A 12 second Google search reveals that he has benefitted from increased valuation of his Charles Schwab stock, which he received due to the sale of TDAmeritrade, which was owned by his father. He also has a stake in many family owned businesses and other assets. He's a rich guy. He owns stuff that increases in value. The fact that he's richer than he was last year doesn't make him a crook.
As informed voters we should be investigating political claims to the best of our ability, not just accepting whatever the candidates or their campaigns say about themselves or their opponents.
The influence of money in politics isn't a surprise. Every quarter we hear how many millions the candidates raised, and there's ongoing arguments about "dark money", political action committees (PACs), individual donations, and the source of all these dollars. The ability to convince people to give you money is one measure of how popular you are, how viable you candidacy. In large primary fields the candidates who can't bring in the big bucks usually drop out before the first votes are cast. But the importance of money connects to the importance of advertising, which depends on the indifference, apathy, and ignorance of the electorate. The propensity of the public to be manipulated is a crucial component of any political advertising strategy.
A related issue is the influence of the institutional political parties. A constant refrain from supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders' run for the Democratic presidential nomination was how the DNC screwed him over and tipped the scales in favor of Secretary Clinton. If the DNC was indeed so powerful that their support could sway a majority of Democratic primary voters, what does that say about the credulousness of the primary election electorate? (The idea that "superdelegates" swung the nomination to Clinton is a myth. The convention votes of party leaders and Democratic office holders, the so-called superdelegates, only factored in if no candidate received a majority of delegate votes. Clinton received a majority without superdelegates). Yes, the party has influence, but mainly because voters are not doing their own vetting of candidates.
So, how does all of this tie in to term limits? Term limits are nothing more than an attempt to protect us from our own indifference, apathy, and ignorance. There are regular elections where we can turn out the incumbents and elect new blood. Incumbents have an advantage you say? Other than name recognition, their main advantage is they have a record that you can look at and judge their fitness against. If the majority think a politician is doing a good job representing their constituents, why not keep electing them? If they are 90 years old and senile, don't vote for them!
Term limits are often a species of voter suppression. The minority party is frustrated that they can't get elected, so they push a term limits petition in order to dilute the power of the majority. Currently Lincoln Republicans, irked at their inability to get a toehold in city politics, is sponsoring a term limits petition drive. The mayoralty was term limited a few years ago when the Democratic mayor announced his intention to run for a third term. Despite the drive's problems with fraudulent signatures, there's a good chance that term limits would pass if it was on the ballot — people will vote for term limits, decrying the career office holders while simultaneously voting in those same office holders.
An issue that generally doesn't get considered in any discussion of term limits is the lack of institutional memory. A legislature with a core of experienced members knows how things work and how to get things done. When a legislature is filled with rookies, you end up with what we see in the current version of the Unicameral: people who don't know how to write legislation, who focus on culture war issues, and are reflexively partisan. During my ten years in state government I saw firsthand how newbie senators consistently did not think through the downstream consequences of legislation, or even how it would be implemented. In most cases lobbyists were writing bills, with senators having only a cursory understanding of what they were voting on. And let's not forget former Senator Ernie Chambers, who kept the Unicameral honest through his detailed knowledge of procedure. And of course presidential term limits exist because Republicans saw that the nation kept electing a liberal Democrat.
One area where I believe term limits would be useful is the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices currently serve lifetime terms. Ideological majorities long outlast the whims of the electorate, and new appointments depend almost entirely on deaths in office. Whereas we can vote out a president, or a senator, or a member of the House after 4, 6, or 2 years, once a Justice is in, it's virtually impossible to remove them. I've seen various proposals for a rotating retirement, ensuring that each presidential term would see an equal number of appointments. Something like that would tie the makeup of the court more closely to what the majority of voters want to see.
Term limits exist because voters are lazy. Lazy and illogical. They complain about politicians staying in office forever, yet pass up the opportunity to get rid of them in regular elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment