ThisIsCommonSense.org

Ted Kennedy is probably the perfect incumbent politician. Never mind the scandals, the personal problems, the body in the water, the high unfavorable rating. Kennedy survives by doling out tax dollars to special interest groups who in turn dole out big dollars to Kennedy’s campaign coffers. It helps to have the Kennedy name, of course, and to be the patriarch of America’s only almost-​royal family. But what’s good for friends of monarchy is bad for friends of democracy.

Even in 1994, when scandal lured a challenger with deep pockets of his own, Kennedy won handily with 58 percent of the vote. Of course, Massachusetts is a Democratic stronghold. But ask yourself: why this particular Democrat, all the time, decade after decade, no matter his flaws? This year, Kennedy has no competition to speak of. Credible challengers are scared off by the sheer weight of incumbency. Kennedy has raised $5.8 million for his reelection campaign, spent $2.7 million, and has more than $4 million in the bank (some of that left over from previous campaigning). His three opponents haven’t got half a million between them.

The story is not unique. In Massachusetts alone, 5 out of 10 House incumbents face no significant opposition. Too often, the major parties just don’t bother to field a candidate when the incumbent decides to run again. And so the incumbents don’t run, they walk, to unchallenged victory. It’s time for term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

It’s easy to imagine all that could be accomplished if you had the power. But it’s also easy to forget that power corrupts. That goes for you and me, too not just politicians. Once in power, our environment would change and so would the pressures we would face. And over time most likely we would change, too. Back in revolutionary days, Englishmen John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon wrote:

Men, when they first enter into [office], have often their former condition before their eyes. They remember what they themselves suffered from the abuse of power; so their first purposes are to be humble, modest and just; and probably, for some time, they continue so. But the possession of power soon alters their hearts. First they grow indifferent. Next, they lose their moderation: Afterwards, they renounce all measures with their old principles, and grow in conceit, a different species from their fellow subjects. And so, by too sudden degrees become insolent, rapacious and tyrannical. So that the only way to put them in mind of their former condition, and consequently of the condition of other people, is often to reduce then to it. A rotation, therefore, in power and [office], is necessary to a free government.

Power changes people. Not just bad people, but good people, too. That’s why we need term limits: because career politicians are no better than you and me.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The election is weeks away, but a new report from the non-​partisan Center for Voting & Democracy picks the winners in every congressional race. In the past, their accuracy has been astounding.

In 1997, 18 months prior to the ’98 elections, leaders of the Center predicted 340 congressional races with incumbents and 21 open seats where there was no incumbent. The results? They were right in 339 out of the 340 incumbent races, or 99.7 percent. In open seats it wasn’t quite as easy, but they were right in 19 out of 21, or 90 percent.

How do they do it? They look at the breakdown of voters by party affiliation. You see, one of the most serious problems we face in creating a competitive electoral system is gerrymandering. This is the process whereby state legislatures draw the political boundaries. It allows politicians to pick their voters before voters can choose them. Add to that the awesome power of incumbency, which scares off competition, and you can see this is not exactly crystal-​ball gazing.

The courts have struck down districts drawn to get a certain racial outcome, but have turned a blind eye to districts that arbitrarily favor one party over another. The solution to incumbents monopolizing our elections is term limits. But another key factor in promoting democracy is to stop the politicians from drawing rigged districts that squelch competition.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Washington, DC is blessed with an abundance of highly educated mouthpieces, who for the right price will eloquently defend the indefensible. But don’t try this at home.

The indefensible is Congressmen George Nethercutt’s decision to break his word to the voters to step down after three terms in office. His pledge won him his congressional seat, but now Nethercutt is willing to cast aside his integrity to hold on to power. In the recent primary, Nethercutt and his cronies splurged big-​time, spending half a million dollars on a massive TV ad barrage in the last three weeks. His opponents did not have the money to air even a single TV commercial. Still, most voters cast their ballots against Nethercutt.

In the last ten years, seven of eight Washington State incumbents who got less 50 percent in the primary were defeated in November. The good news is that Nethercutt is in big trouble. The bad news is that his remaining supporters are still trying to defend the indefensible.

One recent letter to the editor called his 1994 pledge a “gimmick” and suggested we should “accept gimmicks as one price of democracy and move on.” Then there was the letter was from Randall Jones of Newman Lake, Washington. Mr. Jones writes, “I will hold my nose and vote for [Nethercutt.]” My goodness, is this really what our elections have become?! Should you vote for a guy if you can’t do so without holding your nose?

This is Common Sense. Let’s use some. I’m Paul Jacob.

Republicans poke fun at Vice President Al Gore for claiming to have invented the Internet. But political braggadocio isn’t unique to Democrats.

Representative George Nethercutt of Washington State says he must break his word to the voters to step down after three terms because he is so close to finding a cure for diabetes. He’s there in his office right now poring over a microscope. How can Nethercutt still do his congressional work while also doing the biochemistry, you ask? Well, this is Washington. And the cure here, for everything, is to throw other people’s money at it.

What Nethercutt is really looking for isn’t a cure not that he’s against one but votes. But how sad that politicians are so desperate to look good that they pretend they are wonderful for being in favor of what everyone else is in favor of, too. I’m not against a cure for diabetes…are you? Yet I hate to think that all medical research decisions will become political decisions, with everyone suffering from one disease trying to grab dollars away from everyone suffering from another disease.

And I just don’t buy that career politicians are medical wizards for handing out our money. Normal people like you and me take it for granted that folks won’t see us as ax-​murdering creeps even if we don’t constantly insist we’re in favor of education, health, and sunshine. For some reason, politicians feel the need to shore themselves up here. Hmmmm. If the shoe fits.…

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

This may shock you. Al Gore opposes school choice for kids trapped in failing schools. Instead he supports the same old throw-​more-​money-​at-​it, keep-​the-​bureaucrats-​in-​charge “solutions” that haven’t worked for decades.

But after choosing a former school choice advocate to be his running mate, Mr. Gore made a remarkable concession. Here is what he said: “If I was the parent of a child who went to an inner-​city school that was failing … I might be for vouchers too.”

Huh? I am shocked. A career politician, who knows the right thing to do, but lets politics get in the way? Shocking. Al Gore has dug in his heels in defense of the public school monopoly and has no solution to offer parents at all. Though as a politician he opposes school choice for others, he sends his own kids to private schools. He is not alone.

A Heritage Foundation survey of Congress found that many of the same Congressmen who send their kids to private schools also oppose vouchers. A 1999 education bill would have allowed children in dangerous schools to choose another school using vouchers. Fifty-​seven members who believe in school choice for their own kids, cast a no vote. Had they all voted yes, the measure would have passed.

The pattern has been repeated many times. We get political lip service on how much politicians care about education. But they don’t have the guts to fight for what they know is right if it means losing support from special interests. That’s our most serious educational failure.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.