The weekend past bore witness to a miscarriage of justice on a global scale. No, not the triumph of an Electoral College under which the tyranny of the minority can dictate government and the vote of a North Dakotan is worth ten times that of a New Yorker. And no, not even the alleged improprieties of Floridians in awarding their state to Mr. Bush. Certainly, these things are injustices. But we've heard plenty about them, and little more need be said.
The miscarriage of which I write is that, for all the bickering over Bush and Gore, Americans were denied the opportunity to vote for the best candidate available: William Jefferson Clinton. He, in turn, was denied the opportunity to run. All in the name of the 22nd Amendment. All in the name of fairness and governmental propriety. All in the name of a vastly flawed concept known as the term limit.
At their heart, term limits are said to exist to prevent abuse of power. The theory goes that a politician in office for many terms and many more years can grow fat and happy off corruption and selling out his or her constituents. Yet term limits ignore that in an America of free people and powerful media, it is virtually impossible for a politico to get away with such abuse without getting caught and exposed. Names like Packwood and Rostenkowski will ring a putrid bell for decades that however long and venerable someone's career has been, he is not above the law. He is not above an indignant public that will find out his crimes, be they legal, moral, or both.
Term limits thus exist as tools of weak-minded would-be politicians who couldn't get elected in a fair fight. When the Republicans pushed their insipid and nauseating Contract with America in 1994, they included term limits near the top of their list of "positive" changes. Notice, however, that once they managed to get into office, the notion of limiting the length of their stays fell from their tongues and minds.
A good government should be small and should base itself on the free market as closely as possible. As such, it would be unthinkable to fire someone in a private sector job because they've done their job too well, which is what term limits effectively do. Never forget the ultimate term limit - voting for somebody else.
It isn't a partisan issue; for every Strom Thurmond there is a Ted Kennedy. And while I may not be a fan of either of these long-time servers, there are plenty of officials who've only been in office for one or two terms whom I equally dislike. In any case, it's not my business, or anyone's, to tell other people for whom they can and cannot vote, or how many times an individual may run for and hold a post.
Term limits have thankfully been largely forgotten as a hot-button topic of debate. Sadly, however, they are still on the books throughout this great nation, especially at its highest post. I'll make no secret that I would prefer Al Gore to George W. Bush, and that I think the Electoral College is both antiquated and discriminatory against people living in high-population states. But the fact is I'd prefer Bill Clinton for a third term to either Mr. Gore or Mr. Bush for their first.
Bill Clinton is the Thomas Jefferson of the modern era: a deeply flawed, supremely arrogant man with a sometimes-distasteful taste for women. Jefferson's sins are extreme: not only did he own slaves, he is well-known to have fathered children by them. Worse yet, Mr. Jefferson led an extravagant lifestyle that put him in debt after his presidency. Rather than sell off his material goods to pay his debts, he sold slaves - lovers, kids, friends, people who were as human as himself and whom he should have viewed as family. Yet would anyone argue that Thomas Jefferson was a great man? Author of the Declaration of Independence. Founder of the University of Virginia. Fierce proponent of the separation of church and state. Orchestrator of the Louisiana Purchase.
Similarly great is Bill Clinton. While credit must go to Mr. Greenspan and innumerable others, we can never forget that President Clinton commanded a country experiencing not merely the greatest economic boom in its history, but the greatest economy in the history of the world. Never before have we enjoyed such peace and prosperity for so long.
Many have criticized Mr. Clinton's following of a moderate path as hedging or waffling. But there is courage in the middle ground. Some said the former Yugoslavia should be avoided altogether. Others encouraged an all-out ground war. Yet Clinton pushed for a mixture of bombing and diplomacy that prevented widespread casualties - American and beyond - and got the job done. The same can be said of gays in the military. Is "don't ask, don't tell" a cop-out? No, it is the only solution to a volatile issue. It is all too easy to listen to the extreme left or right - I fear Mr. Bush will do the latter. What Bill Clinton realized is that the vast majority of Americans exist in the middle, and the middle is often best for America, and the world.
Thomas Jefferson knew this when he skirted the slavery issue as he helped to found this country. Like Clinton, he ploughed a moderate path, and there were negative ramifications. But the Civil War was most likely an inevitability, and Jefferson's "hedge" bought this nation 85 years to expand and strengthen and to be taken seriously. Had Jefferson done the supposedly "courageous" thing and taken a stand - even one against slavery - he would've plunged us into internal war as soon as the Revolution was over. This great experiment in democracy would have been just that - an experiment, and who knows the extent to which democracy would have flourished here and elsewhere. It might not have flourished at all.
This isn't about forgiving Bill Clinton; this is not a viewpoint of absolution. He is an adulterer, a philanderer - his life and career are decidedly spotty. But our heroes must be flawed. To view them as anything approaching perfection is to deny their humanity. And if they are not human, we cannot aspire to match and exceed their lofty accomplishments. A capitalist. A defender of liberty, both at home and abroad. A tolerant man intent on preventing religious talons from digging their way into government and law. These and many other accolades describe Bill Clinton so much more than do his erotic moral failings.
There are millions upon millions of Americans who disagree with me. It is quite possible Mr. Clinton would have been defeated had he run again. But we should have been able to find out; I should have been able to punch the Clinton chad with my absentee stylus. Instead, all we can do is hope he finds a way to continue his good work in a new role. All we can do is say goodbye to the man, and, I hope, thank you as well.
Lew Titterton is a senior majoring in English.
