It is no secret that Americans today have little regard for either the President or Congress. This fundamental lack of trust in our elected officials is part of the crisis of confidence that pervades the nation.
In the shadow of the public's disdain for our leaders, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's attempt to change the term-limits law so that he can run for re-election is particularly disturbing.
Most observers believe Bloomberg has been an excellent Mayor, and his approval ratings in polls suggest that New Yorkers agree. Even more importantly, as a non-partisan leader - he has been a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent at various times in his life - he is one of the few public officials who seemed to be dedicated to good government, non-political problem-solving, sound management and the public interest.
But now even he is on the brink of betraying the public trust. In 1993 New York voters, by public referendum, established a two-term limit for all city elected officials, including the Mayor and City Council. The voters reaffirmed that position by rejecting - again by public referendum - proposed changes to the law several years later.
Bloomberg's second term will finish in January 2010. But he has asked the City Council to change the term limits law to allow elected officials - including himself and all 51 members of the Council - to serve three terms. And even though the law was established by the vote of all New Yorkers, it is legal for the City Council to change the law, with the Mayor's signature.
Until he decided he wanted to keep his job, Bloomberg had previously declared the idea of changing the term limits law -- other than by another public referendum -- to be "disgusting." City Council Speaker Christine Quinn had previously vowed never to change the term limits law without putting it to all the voters. Now she isn't sure.
Mike Bloomberg's rationale for this proposition is that the financial crisis requires his leadership for another term. According to him, no one else - including prospective candidates like Comptroller Bill Thompson, Congressman Anthony Weiner, or Quinn - can compare with him when it comes to steering the city through the aftermath of Wall Street's collapse.
Bloomberg may be right about that. He may be the best-equipped person for the job, especially at this moment.
Or he may be wrong. We really don't know how a different leader might step up to manage the city.
But it doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong. That's not the point. What matters is that New Yorkers have, through the democratic process, established and reaffirmed their support for a two-term limit. To undermine that decision because he - Michael Bloomberg - believes he is the only person for the job, would do profound damage to our most fundamental principles.
In fact, it is noteworthy that some historians believe that George Washington's greatest act was voluntarily stepping down after two terms to assure the peaceful transition of power - a critical step in assuring that our nation, in its infancy, would endure.
In Founding Brothers, Joseph Ellis wrote that Washington was "the American Zeus, Moses and Cincinnatus all rolled into one." Ellis observed that, in voluntarily relinquishing power despite seeming indispensable, Washington "became the supreme example of the leader who could be trusted with power because he was so ready to give it up." In so doing, George Washington established the "elemental principle" that "presidents, no matter how indispensable, were inherently disposable."
No individual - not Washington, not Bloomberg -- is more important than our democratic process.
Bloomberg argues that the voters would still have the right to choose his opponent in the election for a third Bloomberg term. This is an insulting argument, and the Mayor knows it. Does he not think that voters understood - when they passed the term-limits law - that the alternative would be simply to vote against an incumbent seeking a third term? Of course they realized that. But they voted for term limits because the power of incumbency in New York State is so unjustly imbalanced that challengers have little chance (especially against a mayor reportedly planning to spend $80 million of his own money on his campaign).
New Yorkers passed term limits because they believed it was the only way to assure turnover in our government officials. Some will argue - and I would agree - that term limits are far less desirable than an open, fair process where challengers to elected officials have a legitimate shot, and voters can make an informed decision. Sadly, that is not where we are today and that is why many jurisdictions have reluctantly adopted term limits as the alternative.
Mike Bloomberg has another 15 months in office to help lead New Yorkers through this tough time. He should focus on that, and back away from this ill-conceived idea.
Mayor Bloomberg has a sterling reputation today and has justly earned the trust of the public. We have very few leaders today who can fairly claim that. We cannot afford to have one of them become just another politician. Bloomberg has shown us he is better than that.