As the 2nd District (OH) Turns: Paul Weyrich, Term-limits Hero, Goes AWOL for Bob McEwen

As covered in this post, conservative pioneer Paul Weyrich has endorsed Bob McEwen for Congress in Ohio’s 2nd District. That post noted the obvious problems in Weyrich’s endorsement that really work to argue against McEwen’s election.

This post, as promised, elaborates on Weyrich’s point that McEwen, because of his twelve previous years in Congress, “can hit the ground running due to his previous service (i.e., he will have 12 years of seniority starting on Day 1 of his new term). Everyone else will be number 435.”

That’s a legitimate argument one can bring to the table. McEwen will leapfrog 200-plus Members (just a wild guess; the number could be much higher) with less than 12 years in the House. Even the Congressman who defeated McEwen in 1992, Ted Strickland, who was voted out in 1994 but returned in 1996 (and who is a personal non-favorite of mine), would have less seniority than McEwen should McEwen win!

But, as unfair as it seems, the “practical” argument is that rules are rules, and if McEwen can jump ahead according to those rules, he should be allowed to.

Except that Paul Weyrich, of all people, has no business making this argument. You see, Paul Weyrich strongly supported the term-limits movement of the 1980s and 1990s, and still supports them today.

Incredibly (feeling old, very old), with the exception of a few congressmen who voluntarily promised to limit their tenure in office and backed out (sometimes successfully and sometimes not), it’s hard to believe that it has been ten years since the idea of term limits at the federal level has been a front-burner item (this web site might disagree). In 1995, the Supreme Court declared that states cannot limit the terms of their congressional representatives or senators. However, term limits on many state, county, and municipal political offices are in place throughout the land and have survived all legal challenges. For those who need it, this Wikipedia entry does a good job of reviewing the history of the term-limits movement and the arguments for and against.

Paul Weyrich has supported term limits initiatives in the past, and still supports them today. Some selected cites:

On the reasoning behind term limits:
– From The Washington Post - October 26, 1992 (eight days before McEwen’s first defeat):
Paul Weyrich, the president of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, thinks the term-limit movement reflects a basic change in public attitude toward Washington. “People for the last 20 years have been saying Congress is dreadful and my congressman is wonderful. Now people have come to the opposite conclusion: My congressman is dreadful.”

1994’s Contract With America:
– Interestingly, Weyrich’s attitude towards the Contract was lukewarm. Weyrich noted (go to Page 42 of the right-side pagination at the link) “that the Contract ‘was primarily an economic document’ that ignored the ‘reestablishment of values in our culture.’” Nevertheless, there’s little doubt that he supported the Contract’s specific proposals relating to term limits, which were essentially to limit Senators to two six-year terms and House members to either three or six two-year terms.

Proof that Weyrich hasn’t recently changed his mind on the subject:
– On October 30, 2004, complaining about the courts, he wrote:
Now repeatedly after the people vote the courts intervene. One of the worst examples was….a decision holding that term limits for federal officials, approved by the people of Arkansas, was unconstitutional. (Note: The ellipse is justified, despite the verbiage it skips, because an example not relevant to this discussion was cited first. Weyrich clearly believes that the Arkansas term-limits decision was also “one of the worst.”)

So Weyrich’s bona fides as a past and current proponent of terms limits cannot be disputed.

So, Paul, what’s with the exception for Bob McEwen? Twelve years ago, Bob McEwen was term-limited BY THE VOTERS of two different districts in a span of less than 5 months, after serving the maximum amount of time allowable under the Contract With America’s proposals. He was TWICE told “Your experience and seniority in Congress do not matter. We want someone else.” According to the Contract, Bob’s time is up.

So, here are three questions that I want Paul Weyrich to answer:

• What values-based justification is there for a supporter of term limits endorsing the return of Bob McEwen to Congress with his seniority intact, when living, breathing voters first threw him (AND his seniority) out of office, and then kept him out of office?
• Let’s say you can wiggle your way to a justification for McEwen retaining his seniority. How can someone like you, who has spent roughly 20 years arguing that congressional terms should be limited to 6 or 12 years, because spending too much time in the halls of power is a corrupting force (making officeholders “dreadful”), now say that McEwen’s 12 years give him an advantage(!) over his rivals?
• Finally, let’s assume you can somehow contort your way through the first two questions (which Mary Lou Retton in her prime would have found difficult). How in the world do you reconcile the core logic of term limits, which is that “we the people” should be governed by citizen legislators who return to their careers back home after they complete their service, with your support of Bob McEwen, when he has never left the Washington scene, and has been a lobbyist at this firm, a consultant at this firm, and a dealmaker (as “President and Founder” of Freedom Quest International, noted about halfway down the page) since he was voted out of office? If you believe in term limits, doesn’t the post-congressional career of “Citizen Bob” make the clear and convincing case against his return all by itself?

Paul Weyrich isn’t the first person to throw his principles overboard to support a friend and/or fellow traveler. But I can’t think of another example where someone has poured 15 or more years of effort into a cause, only to walk away from it to support one person’s unquenched political ambitions.