John Howard’s Apparently Imminent Demise Argues for Term Limits
In Australia, John Howard’s days appear to be numbered.
Though he doesn’t say so, Wall Street Journal op-ed writer Tom Switzer’s explanation (link requires subscription) for the imminent fall of the man who, in Reaganesque style, “fundamentally reshaped Australian society through economic reform,” and who has been a staunch ally in the War on Terror, is in effect an argument for term limits.
In this case, Howard is a victim of his own success, as the bold portions of this excerpt clearly show:
The public’s admiration and respect for him has today turned into boredom or, in some cases, outright hostility. Words such as “sad,” “petty,” “arrogant,” “desperate,” “tired” and “out-of-touch” are freely used to describe him. Economic growth is now so strong that the nation’s central bank keeps hiking interest rates, aggravating many swing voters who are mortgaged to the hilt. In conservative circles, there is much sighing and shaking of heads.
If ever there were a political conundrum, this is it. Australia is the envy of the industrialized world. Unemployment, at 4.2%, is at historic lows; commodity exports are booming; and Aussies are fat and happy.
….. (Labor opponent Kevin Rudd has) appealed to Middle Australia precisely by mimicking Mr. Howard’s agenda, even styling himself an “economic conservative” and copycatting the Prime Minister ….. on virtually everything from his support for big income tax cuts to his opposition to gay marriage.
Once you’ve been around too long, chances are the public will tire of you, no matter how effective you are. Once it’s obvious you can’t be beaten on the issues, your opponents will instead mimic you. Hopefully Mr. Rudd means what he says on the matters above. Given how far to the left Mr. Howard’s previous Labor opponent was, I have my doubts.
It would be better to find a successor to whom to pass the torch before this happens. Even Ronald Reagan opposed the 22nd Amendment, though he “would probably (have won) election to a third term” without term limits (Reagan said he would not have run in any case).
Term limits force succession planning that John Howard should have engaged in, but did not, to take place.
Mimic sure, but like Clinton after Bush the Elder, once in office the facade will be removed and true colors shown.
As for term limits look at the problems in Ohio. We are faced with silly Republicans and Democrats jockeying for new offices at the end of their term and never really doing anything unique, just keeping the status quo.
As basic right, we the citizens, should have the right to vote for any candidate we choose, as long as they are of the age and in the case of president, a natural born citizen, as often as we choose. Even if means having Clinton or Taft… gulp, gulp, …back in office.
Comment by Brian — November 21, 2007 @ 11:28 am
#1, to your first sentence, of course.
I believe that if our politicians won’t act as the citizen-legislators our Founders intended, we have to do what we can to force them to.
Comment by TBlumer — November 21, 2007 @ 4:30 pm