POWER PLAY: WITH FREE ELECTIONS, WHO NEEDS TERM LIMITS?

Earlier this week a press release landed on my desk from something called Americans for Limited Terms.

This group, which bills itself as "the nation's leading term limit voter education organization," is miffed at Bob Dole because he is the only Republican candidate for president who hasn't appeased them by signing a pledge committing himself to the cause.

There are plenty of reasons to be miffed at the good senator from Kansas, but I don't think that is one of them.

The pledge is as follows: "As President of the United States, I will support and campaign for the enactment of a constitutional amendment LIMITING THE TERMS of U.S. Representatives to three terms and U.S. Senators to two terms."

Not that presidential support for the term limits will have much bearing on the debate.

Since only Congress and the state legislatures get to decide the passage of amendments -- no presidential signature or veto are involved -- a president's only role would be as power broker. And I doubt that role would be too effective for this particular cause. Someone leaning toward a "no" vote would be unlikely to exchange his support for presidential favors since that would also mean his job.

The president's own terms, of course, are restricted thanks to a little thing called the 22nd Amendment, a point the term limits people often bring up.

As the argument goes: Presidents and most governors have term limits, why not everybody? Well, the deaf can't hear but that's no reason for everyone to wear ear plugs.

At first glance, though, term limits sound like a good idea. Throw the bums out and so forth. When they first came in vogue in 1994, I even liked them. However, by the end of that year's election cycle -- a year, by the way, when Missouri voter approved limits -- my opinion shifted strongly in the other direction.

The term limit people say entrenched incumbents lead to a lack of choice for voters. Term limits actually exacerbate that problem since you are basically telling voters they cannot elect someone who may have overwhelming popular support.

And the argument that challengers can't win against incumbents is ridiculous. Just look at the massive turnover in Congress since 1990.

Is it difficult to win against an incumbent? Of course. That is because successful politicians satisfy a majority of their constituents. As long as they continue to do that, they keep their jobs. If they stop satisfying their constituents, they get tossed like obnoxious drunks from a tavern. Sounds like the system is working fine.

Take Rep. Bill Emerson for example. He is hugely popular in his district and unless his health worsens or he goes completely mad and sponsors legislation to authorize sheriff's departments to use nuclear weapons in the fight against crime, nobody is going to unseat him.

Is that bad? If you don't like his views, you probably think so. However, the majority keeps re-electing him so why should their wishes not be respected?

It would be like forcing Michael Jackson out of the recording business since his albums always shoot to No. 1 and therefore deny other artists a chance at the top slot.

Of course, it would be a grand idea if Michael Jackson quit making music. But just because you don't like his music, doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to listen to it. They shouldn't, but in a free society there isn't much we can do about it.

Term limits are about redistributing power, and maybe that would be a good thing. However, if people don't like their leaders they won't vote for them. They don't need to be told they can't.

~Marc Powers is a staff writer for the Southeast Missourian.