- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Do the folks that populate this comments section think that term limits would be a help here? I ask in all seriousness.
It seems to me that an incumbent has a great deal of inertia in the public's mind. This is why, even with a great deal of evidence that she is not really supporting her constituents in extremely scandalous situations, DiFi still gets a pass, and continues to serve. I don't know about Rockefeller or Harman, or how long they have been in their current positions, but it seems to me that perhaps something to make the Congressional "talent pool" more of a shark pit would go a long way toward offering the carrot necessary (piece of chum, to keep with the metaphor) to prod excellent service. Then, if your accomplishments are not so great, you will not move on up the ladder, and will be cycled out at the end of your available time.
On the other hand, maybe this would just reinforce the revolving door we have between industry and government positions.
All I am wondering is, would it be advisable to build this into the process? The big plus would be that the tendency to keep doing what has been done before (Joe Lieberman, anyone?) would be done away with, and the voting public would almost be forced to look into the positions of the candidates every so often. Familiarity breeds contempt, it is said. I think it also breeds indolence, and that is why we end up with crappy fixtures as our representatives. However, I am open to have my mind changed.
