John Lindstrom, publisher of the Gongwer News Service in
Lansing, has written the kind of piece that makes other journalists say to
themselves: “I wish I had written that.”
The 40-year veteran of reporting about the state Capitol wrote
today that the “ham-handed” manner in which the Courser/Gamrat expulsion matter
was handled by Republicans and Democrats can be directly traced to the
term-limits law that has put the second-string on the field in Lansing.
Lindstrom does not claim that our lawmakers are inferior
by nature to those who legislated before them, during the pre-term limits era.
But he points out that the temporary nature of the business of legislating has
handicapped the institution of the Legislature in an incurable manner.
productivity? Putting an end to term limits.
 |
| Lindstrom |
but I will offer a small taste of Lindstrom’s delicious destruction of the 2015
brand of House and Senate:
“The greatest benefit of the pre-term limit era was the
ability for legislators to get to know one another and respect each other. Yes,
there was the ability to develop expertise on subject matters, procedure and
budgetary issues. But it was the ability to work with each other, craft
compromises that respected each other’s political beliefs, and to understand
that when they had to oppose each other it was business, not personal.
significance of that human characteristic in governing. It is a characteristic
one starts to see in the legislators who have been here the longest under term
limits, and then it vanishes when they do.
the political rancor. The parties still took their shots at one another in
years past and ran feverish campaigns. But they did not equate their opponents
with Satan; they did not see them as lost souls doomed to eternity.
ability to work together was invaluable. The respect for both the institution
and the state’s people took precedence over principles – that all too often are
convenient rather than sincere – and party affiliation.”
Term limits are the stop-me-before-I-reelect-this-bum-again law. They are more of a restriction on voters than politicians. Support for term limits is a tacit admission that one doesn't believe voters are smart enough to jettison politicians who have out-served their usefulness. But it's also true. Without term limits we had state lawmakers serving 20-30 years, getting easily reelected time after time because they enjoy good name recognition. Some of them were still doing good jobs. Others had become corrupt and deserved to be rejected by voters. Ergo, term limits are not wholly good or wholly bad. But most people don't see the downside of term limits. Stories like this show it to them. So good for you, Chad Selweski and John Lindstrom.