Senator Ted Cruz just proposed a constitutional amendment to limit senators to two terms and congressmen to three terms. This was at his own expense as he is in his second term. He however, knows this will never pass.
I have opinions about Congress. Why don’t we treat the congressmen like we treat our military? You have to start as a state representative. After two terms you can run for state Senate. If successful after two terms you can run for Congress. Two terms in Congress you are either kicked out or elected senator. Two terms as senator if you aren’t up for president you are done.
Since none of the current Congress other than Dan Crenshaw have a clue what starting from the bottom and doing your time is, this won’t fly either. I am only proposing a system where a 29 year old bartender doesn’t get paid $175,000 a year to be literally stupid and most senators are actually qualified to lead the country.
Very few (read as zero) people have gone from college to CEO and most privates or second lieutenants don’t become generals at age 29. There is some wisdom to the military system even though I got out because it was too restricting. But it did keep totally retarded people from becoming generals.
* * *
I just read Mark Maynor's outline of a plan that would require a reasonable and orderly and logical progression of personal achievement and accomplishment and experience at lower levels of government before a person could be considered for promotion to any higher level of government. It does seem reasonable enough; shucks, I remember when school actually worked that way. Most of us would agree that when school worked that way, it really did tend to work, considering what it had to work with. But even way back then, it seemed that politics offered even the village idiot a different chance at success.
This new plan for government is an interesting and useful suggestion. Seldom would anyone suggest using the military as a model of logic and efficiency, but we could argue that the military method does tend to work -- if logic and efficiency and expense aren't always the most critical factors in the equation.
We all know that such a new plan for government will never become a fact, simply because the existing government stands in its way. A large percentage of those already in government could not qualify under the new plan. They have certainly 'paid their dues' to get where they are, but not in the open and aboveboard way suggested by Mr. Maynor, so they'll never vote for any such change.
Then I proceeded to read Roy Exum's daily essay, Mr. Lincoln Never Quit. As I followed his list of line items where Mr. Lincoln failed time after time, the general impression truly is that Honest Abe's major accomplishment seemed to be getting back up, dusting himself off, and starting all over again. As I read all of that and mentally reviewed the suggested new plan for government, it was obvious that Mr. Lincoln never would have managed to become President of anything, had the new plan been in effect 150-plus years ago.
So, as usual, I find myself confused. I'm impressed by a reasonable sounding plan for government, and I'm impressed by Abraham Lincoln's exceptional accomplishments, and I see that the two are contradictory. The first would have prevented the second from happening.
Of course, my impressions of those two current opinions do nothing to confirm or negate either of them. But I'll throw another name into today's arena: Charles Darwin. Mr. Darwin was born on the same day as Mr. Lincoln, February 12, 1809; both famous men would have been 210 years old today, if things worked that way. Interestingly, their mothers died in 1817 and 1818, but the contrast between Darwin and Lincoln is more obvious than any similarities. Darwin was born well-off, he was well educated in the traditional ways, he was generally successful in his work, he wrote several complex books, and he died a natural death. Mr. Lincoln, on the other hand, was born poor and tended to stay that way; he was not well educated in the usual sense, he was profoundly unsuccessful in many ways, and he managed to write just a few very short works such as The Emancipation Proclamation and The Gettysburg Address before being murdered. Oh, Darwin was thoroughly English, and Lincoln was thoroughly American. Ignoring that last detail, and based on each man's personal preparation and achievements, which one seems most likely to have become President of the U.S.A.? Which one seems most likely to have been the better President of the U.S.A.?
Sometimes I have to remind myself of this statement by H.L. Mencken: "An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup."
And I believe we did pretty well in having Mr. Lincoln as President, really I do!