In response to a term limits question from Billerica’s Mike Dempsey, only the most senior candidate (now in his 16th term at the State House) pledged to observe self-imposed term limits, presupposing of course that no other forces will do the imposing.

In Monday’s Democratic debate, candidate Barry Finegold answered that it’s important to realize that the next congressman will be “the low person on the totem pole.” His suggestion seemed to be met with unanimous, good-humored consent. At least two other candidates have used this very phrase “totem pole”, and even more echoed their perceived standing as 435^th out of 435. Finegold, in further response to the question of term limits, said, “I think the way things work in Washington, the more seniority you have, the more you can get done for your district.”

I think it is instructive that native Americans never intended totem poles to be hierarchical representations of people. Being at the bottom or top of the pole did not necessarily imply any distinction in status. So it was intended for Congress. Congressmen are elected to represent roughly the same number of people. If I did not believe that the people of my district should have an equal voice, if I believed that those citizens represented by a powerful chairman or more senior representative should have greater weight in the affairs of this country, I would be a very ineffective Congressman indeed. Instead, I will be one of 435 equal members, and in order to hurdle the legislative obstacles, the most active and vocal.

The point of term limits is less about electoral politics as the candidates suggested, and more about reforming the institution of Congress itself. With constant turnover, the very seniority Finegold cited would no longer be an issue. Frequent power shifts within the legislative body would force a fairer system in which to work. And rather than the sole concern of Congressmen being to keep their seat and benefits for as long as possible, they might actually try and get done, in the little time they have, as much as possible.

The Republican candidates last night were also asked about term limits. Both climbed out on the illogical limb of a qualified term limits pledge, complete with detailed formula. However, in a night filled with tortured reasoning, they said they will not keep their pledges unilaterally. Ignoring what that might mean for a moment, is it not worse to know what course you should take, and not take it—to wait and wait until a quorum has formed? Is this not a lack of leadership?

We need leaders who have some vision of where we ought to be going, and the ideas that would allow us to get there. You have my words. Here is my pledge: I will observe a four-term limit, honest injun.