There are an assortment of contexts where this conflict between Individual’s judgments and blanket rules raises its ugly head.
Term Limits:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
IF we vote a ‘bad’ person into office, i.e. he/she becomes ‘bad’ after election, we want a way to kick em out. Term Limits provides an easy answer: After 2 terms, you’re out! This requires NO action, or discrimination on our part!
BUT
What happens when we get a really, really great person into that office?
We’d like them to stay there forever…
So we have a ‘rule’ which ignores individuals; great or terrible, vs we must deal fully with an Individuals performance, i.e. vote them out of office.
Tenure:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
In academia, we have a notion called ‘tenure’. It means that if you’ve been ‘good’ for a while, you can stay around forever. This is sometimes a beneficial option, since the person, who may be controversial, and true leaders are often controversial, no longer has to fight daily petty battles. But some ‘tenured’ individuals, over time, become less ‘good’ in our eyes, or more often in the eyes of their opponents. So, again, how do we kick them out? or should we?
Judges & Minimum sentences:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
One area where we mostly expect an Individual, a judge, to decide matters is in our legal system. If there was a rule, a prescribed sentence, for every crime, we would not need judges at all. But we, for the most part, allow individual judges to exercise discretion, and decide in an individual situation what is the best way to administer justice. But when we, or certain powerful groups, do not like the way judges decide, we force ‘Minimum sentences’ on certain crimes, overriding the individual judges decisions.
So….
Today, Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2009, there is a prominent story where a 6-Year-Old Scout was suspended for bringing Knife-Fork-Spoon Utensil to School. The rule won and the individual lost. NO discretion.
Aircraft safety:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
We witnessed Captain “Sully” Sullenberger as an Individual, do what no set of rules in the world could have done – save ALL of his passengers & crew in virtually impossible circumstances…
There have been many, many such instances…
So how do we solve this dilemma?
I do not have answers, but I want you, each of you to ponder, to think about this issue. Here are some provocations for your thinking…
Government:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Our founders saw public service as a temporary assignment. You might be a jeweler, or a banker, or a farmer, or a restaurant owner, or … Then you go serve a term or two, no more, as a senator, or governor, or Secretary of … or whatever. Then you return to your previous occupation. The notion of a ‘professional’ politician, serving for decades, was anathema to their thinking. I, personally, agree with them.
In regards to term limits, what one group might consider being a “bad” person in office, another group might see as a “good” person. The problem with the idea of trying to vote out a politician, with whom we disagree, is that, without term limits, many representatives and senators are in constant campaign mode. Because of this, politicians want to “bring home the bacon” to their constituents, in order to be favored with their votes in the next election. They are, in essence, buying votes, at the expense of fiscal responsibility, good government, and the spirit of the Constitution.
While some people might want to keep a particular congressman in office, it should be remembered that no one person is indispensable. Our founders knew that to be a fact. It is time for term limits to be imposed, for the welfare of the country. I would propose 4 terms in the House, which would total 8 years. This could be followed by two terms in the Senate, which would be a total of 12 years. If a politician was so favored by the members of their state that would give them a total of 20 years, which is long enough for anyone to spend in Washington. Of course, one could run for president after that, or be appointed to a position within an administration.
The dilemma that we have, at this time, is that this type of change would have to be proposed, voted on and passed by those who are currently in power. What chance is there of that?
Comment by Denise — October 16, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Your comment got me thinking, and I agree for at least 3 reasons, financing, power madness, and horse trading.
Financing: It would indirectly solve or at least reduce much of the campaign financing mess. From the point of view of candidates, I doubt many would pump the millions of $ into a campaign if they were only going to serve 2-4 terms. Likewise, the lobbyists would not invest as much, since the real payback is when a person stays for many terms and get entrenched with internal power.
Power Madness: The personal motivational aspect. It is only the long term stays that build the illusion of absolute power.
Horse Trading: The internal horse trading would be significantly reduced. It’s hard to build an old-boy network if there are no old-boys!
> The dilemma that we have, at this time, is that this type of change would have to be proposed, voted on and passed by those who are currently in power. What chance is there of that?
We may have an opportunity in the next election cycle. If things keep going the way they are, & I don’t see anything to change it, we may get a huge shift to Republican & Independent candidates. If we push them while candidates to sign a pledge to act in favor of term limits…
Bob
Comment by Bob Gorman — October 16, 2009 @ 2:27 pm