|
Attention deficit To Keep Them Focused: A Third Term?By Rick Horowitz
Maybe we need a constitutional amendment. I know, I know -- you shouldn't go pushing constitutional amendments every time you see something you don't like, and I've never been one for tinkering with the founding documents every couple of weeks the way some folks seem to do. But when you've tried everything else, and nothing works? That's a different matter. So here's the amendment I want: an amendment that will allow the president of the United States to serve more than two terms. An amendment that would take effect immediately. Now, I realize there's already a constitutional amendment -- the 22nd -- that says just the opposite -- two terms, tops. (With one or two tiny exceptions too technical to get into.) So my amendment would have to repeal that one. But it wouldn't be the first time. Think Prohibition. They tried it. It didn't work. They ditched it. So it's been done. The better question is: Why? Why should I try to get rid of an amendment that's been on the books for more than 50 years? And more to the point, why am I trying to do it now, when the current president is someone whose years as a former president can't come soon enough to suit me? The short answer is: I'm willing to sacrifice for the common good. And the common good is? A White House that pays attention. You hear it everywhere you turn -- the Bush administration has gotten sloppy. It's making mistakes it never would have made before. It's missing things it never used to miss. It's reacting slowly, when it reacts at all. Its political antennae have gone on the fritz. Hard to argue with any of that. You look at the fight over Dubai running our ports, or the response to Katrina, or the Harriet Miers nomination, or -- Hard to argue. And you hear two explanations for it. The first one is: They're exhausted. They're in their sixth year of doing this; most of the key players have been there from the start, and they're plumb tuckered out. God knows they have reasons to be tired, with all the things they've had on their plate. (Although some of the dishes they've ordered -- Chef's Iraqi Surprise, for instance -- were definitely a la carte, and passing them up would have been the far smarter move, and would have spared them -- and us -- all the indigestion.) But the second explanation is the one that really grabbed me: The Bush brigades have gotten sloppy, the theory goes, because they're not running for anything anymore. When they had Election Day to keep them focused, people say, they were sharp. They were on high alert. If an issue came up, they were on it in a flash. The goal was 270 electoral votes, and anything that even threatened to get between them and that magic number had to be dealt with, and dealt with right now, and dealt with effectively -- or at least spun well enough to make it disappear for a while. What a difference a year makes. Mistake after mistake. Misstep after misstep. Running the country competently for its own sake, it seems, isn't sufficient incentive for this bunch. The thrill of the contest is what kept them on their game -- if there's no electoral payoff, why bother? So the rest of us can wring our hands about it. We can lament that keeping us secure doesn't engage the president and his people nearly as much as campaigning on our fears did. But why lament when we can amend? Pass my constitutional amendment and everything changes. Dangle the prospect of a third term in front of them, and they won't be snoozing through news cycles anymore. Those competitive fires will be crackling again. And the rest of us? We'll get a White House that's actually on the job. An end to the two-term limit -- a nearly perfect solution. In fact, there's only one small problem. What if they win? Posted 2/28/06. You'll
win when you click to "Rick's" for award-winning commentary!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
