The following column was published in the November, 1998 issue of Brainstorm, a magazine covering politics, policy and culture of the Northwest.

Another big election victory for The Government Party

No wonder so many sensible registered voters decided to take 1998 off. Campaign politics are low-grade entertainment and elections don't change very much.

For a moment, let's remove the labels "Democrat" and "Republican." Without alternatives like independent candidates or None Of The Above, voting just encourages the party running our public sector: the Government Party (GP). When we vote for GP candidates, government only gets more powerful.

This trend is distracting to ordinary registered voters. It contradicts an American instinct that because government is a necessary evil, there should be as little of it as possible. Voters have become conditioned that candidate elections do not present and opportunity to increase their own empowerment. They are increasingly asking the obvious question: "Why bother?"

Evidence abounds that non-voters are making the correct choice. Everywhere, incumbents win. Next year 98% of the U.S. House members who ran for reelection will return to their same job. With few exceptions, the only competitive elections are for open seats.

It makes sense. Incumbents' power and prestige are derived from their employer - the Government Party. GP candidates are exclusively entitled to tax-funded campaign perks like press secretaries and constituent service staff. Their reelections are chiefly bankrolled by special interests who depend on legislated subsidies and anti-competitive protections. Newspapers routinely endorse incumbents, shamelessly advocate for them (another "free" perk of incumbency) and cheerlessly report the bland, lopsided reelections. However, they abhor the more audible level of political discussion in competitive elections, where others compete with the news and opinion-making elite.

Many challengers run in the face of a 2% chance of winning only because they believe the seat will be open one or two terms in the future, when being outside the Government Party will be less of a disadvantage.

1998 marked the first election for the Oregon legislature with open seats that incumbents would not voluntarily vacate. Thanks to the mandatory term limits measure passed in 1992, more legislative campaigns were competitive. At the other end of the spectrum: the embarrassing number of uncontested, uncompetitive incumbent judges seeking reelection. Their terms are not limited.

Observers this year were spoon-fed the fuzzy notion that term limits caused radical and dangerous levels of campaign spending for state legislative open seats.Following this line of thinking to its illogical conclusion, perhaps term limits could also shoulder the blame for other political woes, including presidential. After all, Congress would be unlikely to impeach a president popular enough to win continual reelection. And if the 22nd amendment did not prevent a president from running for a 3rd term and beyond, we would avoid a costly, competitive, noisy campaign in 2000.

Here's a suggestion that would make sense to Government Party advocates who bemoan low voter turnout. Since they would never allow a None Of The Above alternative, we could outlaw all term limits and ban voting against incumbents. Elections could be held only for open seats created either by death or retirement. Although turnover and the number of elections would fall, at least turnout would increase.

More importantly, cowardly Government Party incumbents would not be forced by critics into hiding behind the most defenseless in our society - kids, seniors on Social Security, victims of juvenile crime, etc. - to secure the GP's proprietary mandate renewed at every election: growing the size and scope of government.

Postscript: Nov. 3, voters rejected proposed repeal of Multnomah County's term limits on elected commissioners by 2-1. Mainstream news media had recommended a vote "for" repeal.