Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
It’s not really fair to expect everyone to have an up or down opinion on a candidate within a week of their campaign being announced. For that reason there should be nothing surprising about the fact that Bob Lonsberry is not sold on Mike Lee (yet). As he aired his minor reservations with our latest 2010 Senate candidate he got talking about term limits – because Mike Lee thinks we should have a term limits amendment (perhaps like this one) – and Bob’s position completely failed to add up. At first I was planning to just comment on Bob’s site, but I felt that this deserved a full post.
There is a disconnect between Bob’s position on term limits and what he says later in his article. Here’s what he thinks of term limits:
Yes, people serve way too long in Congress. Yes, we have a professional political class right now. But the insinuation that the era of the Founders was much different doesn’t stand up to the test of history. Several of the Founders themselves held elected office for years on end. Some for the majority of their lives, and our Republic was benefited by their service.
And any person with Mike Lee’s knowledge of the Constitution must understand that an amendment mandating term limits would go against both the letter and the spirit of what the Founders wanted. Term limits don’t limit the freedom of politicians, they limit the freedom of the voters. We don’t need term limits, we have elections. And if Mike Lee, or someone else, can pose a viable alternative to Bob Bennett, and convince voters of that fact, the Constitution’s existing system for replacing politicians will work perfectly.
Later he makes this statement which exposes the weakness of his position:
I’m also bothered by Mike Lee’s age. Not that a 38-year-old can’t serve well in the Senate, but that he’s got so much life left. True, he is saying that people shouldn’t make a career of Washington, but so too did the two current Utah senators, both of whom have since made a career of Washington. Everybody running against incumbents is against long tenure in office. And everybody running for re-election believes in experience and seniority.
My concern is that at 38, Utah could be biting off something it will take 30 or 40 years to chew. I’m nervous about that.
The one selling point for 76-year-old Bob Bennett is that, at his age, he’s got a built-in term limit. He’s also, as they say, the devil you know. (emphasis added)
In case you missed the disconnect, Bob says that the founders already established a way to limit terms through regular elections and then worries that we might be stuck with Mike Lee for 40 years because he’s relatively young.
Here’s the half-truth that opens up the heart of the problem:
Term limits don’t limit the freedom of politicians, they limit the freedom of the voters. We don’t need term limits, we have elections.
It’s true that term limits limit the freedom of voters by eliminating the option to elect a president they like to a third term (to use our existing term limit as an example) – that’s the only freedom of the voters that is being limited. The problem is that the freedom of voters is already severely limited by our lack of term limits because of our political environment where potential candidates often choose not to challenge an incumbent, especially within their own party. For proof of that just look at how many more candidates tend to run for open seats. With term limits we would lose the option to vote for an incumbent after a set time, but we would gain so many candidates who currently choose not to run against an incumbent.
Bob claims that the founders did not want term limits and he’s probably right (although I doubt they ever addressed the issue to prove that conclusively) but they didn’t want parties either (they did make that clear) and we have parties anyway. The party system without term limits makes the regular election cycle a very weak way to limit terms – especially in a place where one party is dominant. Bob says that if someone can pose a viable alternative to an incumbent and convince voters of that fact then the system works perfectly. The question is, how can that happen when the potential candidates remove themselves from consideration because of the system that tilts heavily in favor of incumbents? And what makes a viable candidate? If a viable candidate is one that has the capacity and interest necessary to tackle the issues and do the job of a senator then I am a viable candidate. If a viable candidate is one that voters are likely to believe in that I am nowhere near viable. The first one should be the criteria, and if it were we would have lots of viable candidates for any office.
In a nation that probably has 80 out of 100 senate seats safely in the hands of one party or another and only about 20 seats that actually have a reasonable chance of changing hands from one election to the next the method of limiting terms that the Founders established is virtually impotent. The era of the founders may not have been much different than our era but it was different in some important ways. In this environment the Founders might find term limits to be a very reasonable method to ensure that the voters had the maximum amount of choice in candidates.
8 replies on “Bob Lonsberry Contradicts Himself on Term Limits”
I agree with the inconsistency in Bob’s argument, but the larger issue here is Mike Lee’s own inconsistency regarding the Constitution. I can forgive a radio DJ a little easier than I can a potential US Senator.
Mike says that all we need to do to fix our current problems is to return to the Constitution. And how are we going to do that? By changing the Constitution (specifically with term limit and balanced budget amendments). Mike wants to have his cake and eat it too, and no one on the right is calling him on it because they are desperate for some sort of savior candidate (think Fred Thompson in the 2008 Republican primary–at first Republicans didn’t care who he was just so long as he wasn’t one of the candidates they already knew).
Whenever Mike gets called out on these issues, he turns incredibly vague or just starts citing random legal cases like the good lawyer that he is. I don’t trust this man to be our next US Senator despite all the lovefest currently surrounding him. The honeymoon ain’t gonna last.
I certainly think it is reasonable to expect more from a potential senator than from a radio DJ but I still don’t see any inconsistency in saying that returning to the Constitution would resolve the current mess we are in and also saying that we need a couple of amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution itself specifies an amendment process so those two positions are not necessarily incompatible. I admit that some proposed amendments would be be incompatible with the assertion that returning to the Constitution would resolve our current issues but that would be things like suggesting an amendment to give the president broader powers and extend his term of office from 4 years to 15, or an amendment dissolving the House of Representatives. (Just throwing out a couple of random examples there.)
I’m not saying that everyone should reflexively trust Mike, but I’d like to hear some sound arguments about why a term limits amendment or a balanced budget amendment would not be a good idea.
Jeff: returning to the Constitution and returning to the Constitution’s principles are two different things, though related. Inasmuch as we have steered away from the principles enshrined in the Constitution, it is not antithetical to amend the Constitution in such a way as to strengthen it according to the principles it was founded upon.
In short, amending the Constitution does not make one an enemy to the Constitution, nor to the Founders’ intent. The Founders were clear that the Constitution could, and perhaps should, be amended as society progressed.
I have seen him questioned on these issues, and he has not been vague. Perhaps you phrased your question poorly or something, but I have received satisfactory explanations when discussing similar things with him.
You are seeing an inconsistency that does not exist.
Jeff, how could anyone have predicted the amount of influence that lobbyists and their money would have had now, back in the Founder’s era? That’s why they allowed for the correct way in going about things, and that was amending the constitution. If you could come up with a better way to stop the corruption and the career politicians, let’s hear it.
But since there are no better ideas out there to make it happen, I am siding with Mike Lee on this and he has my vote as a delegate
Term limits would do the country a great deal of good. Seniority would become less a question of “Gad, is Senator X going to head up that Committee for the next 30 years?” as “Alright, Senator Y will lead this committee for the next two/four/six years, I can deal with that.”
While Bob argues that term limits would, in effect, tie the hands of the voters, I think there is ample precedent to show that it would not. Since the US Presidency has had an imposed term limit since FDR, I think it’s undeniable that, even at 8 years, a president can and does still have the ability to make great or awful and often sweeping changes. Look at our finest presidents; all (excluding FDR) have served for eight years or less.
Of course many challengers to incumbents argue that term limits should be imposed (either by the electorate or by statute). But I truly believe that, whether by self-imposition or by statute, Mike Lee would go for two terms and move on.
@ Jeff Haywood. Mike is not inconsistent in arguing for a return to the principles of the Constitution and for Constitutional Amendments. The Constitution, while alone a visionary and great document, was drafted by men who had enough foresight to allow changes and additions to be made to it. The Constitution envisions amendments. Indeed, the Bill of Rights is a collection of the first ten amendments.
Amending the Constitution is not “having your cake and eating it too.” I would argue that amending the Constitution is perfectly in line with both the foundational principles and the plain language of the great charter.
Thanks TFC Utah for articulating my thoughts so well.
Right now, there is a ground swell opposition to incumbency all over America. The main problem is that those in congress have one main objective: to get re-elected, and they seem willing to do whatever is necessary to stay in office, even if that means selling their soul to special interests. Given enough time in office, the loyalties always swing towards those interests that have given the most money, not necessarily to the constituents that actually cast the votes. The only way to combat that is to limit the time that is spent in office, therefore minimizing the loyalty switch. Term limits are vitally crucial to the return to a more pure public servant with the interests of the States and the individuals keenly in focus. Case in point: Senator Bennett held five fundraisers in Washington D.C. before he came home to Utah following the holiday recess. Think any of that money came from Utah folks?
Few elected officials season into statesmen, they usually sour into pandering politicians – just as you explained.