Give Everyone a Turn at the Game : Term limits: Only tough cures can make politics worthwhile again. At least this will clear out the careerists.

People today proclaim self-righteously that they don’t vote, using the same tone with which they used to boast that they don’t smoke and neither do they drink. If they utter the word politics they spit it out in distaste. For me, as a former governor, this attitude is painful and difficult to listen to, but all too real.

Why the anger? Fundamentally, the public feels the system is rigged in favor of the politicians, who are there not to serve them but to serve themselves. Most people believe that their vote doesn’t count.

I used to take comfort in believing that no matter how distorted the political process might be, a well-informed public could machete its way through the jungle of campaign hyperbole to gain a clear view of the candidates and what they stood for. Today, I am not so sure. In recent years, for reasons including the power of money and the media, the political system has tilted so lopsidedly in favor of incumbents that I have succumbed to the urge to give the machinery of government a swift kick.

Political careerism has led the public to conclude that the political process, through which we have historically succeeded in righting our most blatant wrongs, in healing our most painful wounds, is now practically useless.

For that reason alone, I support term limitations. I am desperate to make politics come alive again. Breaking the gridlock of incumbency could throw the doors wide open to new people and new ideas that would make politics rewarding, meaningful, even fun. The shock could even rouse the etherized American voter. California’s ground-breaking limits, approved by voters last spring, will show within a few years (if they survive court challenges) whether the kick has shaken anything loose.

With term limitations, anybody can play. The white male political elite can be challenged by all kinds of newcomers. Possibly that would include a new set of white male political elites, but they would have to face the challenge of the diverse political constituencies who now have their noses pressed against the glass, watching a distant video that has no connection to their lives.

Those who predict that chaos and confusion will inevitably result have not looked at the level of government where term limitations--by law or de facto-- have existed for years: the nation’s statehouses. Could there be a connection between shorter terms and the innovation and courage displayed by governors who have had to raise taxes, balance budgets and fund domestic programs that the federal government has ignored? My state, Vermont, has no term limits, but most governors have served from one to three two-year terms.

In Vermont we have also maintained the tradition of a part-time citizen legislature. Approximately one-fourth to one-third of state legislators are newly elected every two years, and only a handful could be considered professional politicians. These legislators have proven that citizens who have spent most of their lives as homemakers, real estate agents, teachersor farmers have the capacity to analyze problems and cobble together solutions.

This is the heart of our democratic system. Life-and-death decisions are entrusted daily to a random group of citizens--the nation’s juries. Why not apply the same principle to our political power structure--match the right to be judged by one’s peers with the right to be governed by one’s peers?

Not only would the presence of more female, African-American, Latino, and Asian American faces bring in fresh ideas, this newly framed political family portrait would send a powerful visual signal. Voters would see decision-makers who look like them, and could finally believe that their own problems might be recognized.

These changes would shake up the political hierarchy, releasing intense passion, pent-up anger, and new hope. These, after all, are the basic ingredients of political change.

No matter how much a professional politician succeeds in understanding the needs of his or her constituents, the issues suffer some distortion, because his life is so different from the lives of those he serves. The constant drive for re-election further distorts the incumbent’s ability to take new ideas seriously, because they may be too fraught with political risk.

Why not go back to thinking of government service as “service”--something you contribute to society for five to 10 years of your life, an experience that adds to the complete definition of a meaningful life? One consequence might be the return of that old-fashioned idea, part of the American dream--that anyone’s son (or daughter) could grow up to be President.