In yesterday’s USA Today, Howie Rich explains the benefits of term limits on politicians.
On Term Limits
Share
Previous post: Jon Macey on Uncle Sam's Interventions
Next post: Best Line That I've Heard in a While
where orders emerge
Previous post: Jon Macey on Uncle Sam's Interventions
Next post: Best Line That I've Heard in a While
{ 20 comments }
I go back and forth on term limits. I certainly see the merits, but I also believe that they can create perverse incentives for candidates who are no longer able to run for office.
For example, I would argue that the 22nd amendment helps free the president from electoral accountability during his/her second term in office. Realistically, the only motivation to "do a good job" is to not hurt the party's chances in the subsequent election — a far weaker incentive the need to win a personal election.
The recent bailout mess provides another example: Nate Silver has pointed out that those candidates who were subject to a close election this year were far more likely to vote for the bailout than those who were secure in their seats. On the one hand, you could argue that term limits would result in closer elections on average, thereby increasing the number of congressmen who would vote in line with the "will of the people." But isn't it also just as plausible that term limits would create a Congress of unaccountable "lame ducks" who would feel little pressure to go along with public sentiment?
So, I certainly see the merits, but I think this is one of those cases where the "unintended consequences" could very well outweigh the potential benefits.
I too have mixed emotions over this. The lack of term limits has allowed family dynasties of politicians to flourish in Illinois to the harm of the public. And yet, arbitrarily getting rid of the perhaps few, but still good people with experience in government doesn't make much sense either.
If citizens "value fresh ideas, new perspectives and more competitive elections more than the so-called institutional knowledge of the political ruling class" and "instinctively see through… power-hungry politicians," then why are term limits necessary?
Please suggest that George Mason University use term limits instead of tenure and report back.
The Presidency had a voluntary term limit that lasted until St Franklin of Roosevelt decided that he was just SO valuable to the Democracy (sic) that he had to remain as President for as long as he lived.
Now that it's imposed by law, it should apply to all branches of elective government. I could be easily persuaded that it apply to judicial and bureau, too.
How about limiting candidates in a federal election to those with a net worth of $15 million or more?
What about the Virginian/CSA solution? Prohibit consecutive terms but let politicians run for office as many times as they like. They can't run for re-election but if they intend to run after their successor's term is over, they still have to do a decent job.
Hmmm, no consecutive terms in office.
Term limits: I'll put down my incumbent if you put down your incumbent.
Does that help explain it?
How about prohibiting incumbents from campaigning?
How about sortition?
Needless to say, the same goes double for hereditary title, which is still alive and well in the U.S.
I'd take term limits one step further. Randomly select politicians from the jury pools and pay them only per diem. The quality of leadership would be similar and most would have financial incentive to do the business at hand and then leave town to return to more profitable ventures. More public service; less public trough.
We should disqualify anyone who seeks public office.
My understanding is that the founding fathers never meant to encourage politics as a career. They meant it as a public service and that the politician eventually returns to his private life. Correct me please if I have my history wrong.
Whether they intended it or not, entrenched career politicians have caused more harm than good because the longer they're in office the less accountable they become. I echo brotio. I don't understand why term limits were not extended to every branch of elective government.
Considering the system of government laid out in the corporate charter for the USA, discussion by citizens of a need for term limits is proof that true democracy (one man=one vote) is a failure.
So, is restricting choice via term limits the answer to the problem that causes the failed democracy?
How does term limits create more alert, more defensive, better educated, more intelligent, and wiser people?
What term limits does is tell people that they collectively aren't smart enough to choose good leaders and retain the ones that perform and discard/replace the ones that do not; so, we in the present must restrict the choices not only of ourselves but for all our progeny.
I agree that the American people have indeed proven that incapability yet I find myself reluctant to support term limits for the same reasons that the founding fathers did not include it in the founding documents.
Be optimistic and assume that the USA will survive another two hundred years, do you consider yourself intelligent and capable enough to dictate the restriction of great great great great great grandchildren's choice in leaders?
Most of us would immediately reject a proposal that placed the same kind of restrictions on future markets, why would support for term limits crop up here?
In Mexico we have term limits, and representatives cannot be reelected. That creates a different kind of problem. Our politicians main concern is to be in good standing within their political party since their current and future jobs depend on it. They don't feel any need to serve the people who elected them.
Sadly, Ramon, this is not a problem different from the one we have.
It is a problem of human nature.
Those in a position of power will use that power to protect their position.
Methinks, when I first voted, I voted Republican solely because they were the underdogs in Maryland. The next time I voted I went straight Libertarian. The only time I varied from that was the Ron Paul vote, though in sometimes in non-partisan races I may vote for a businessman or tech type over an incumbent.
Sam, I actually liked Reagan and I still do (but, you know I'm a bit of a war monger:):). I've never encountered a candidate with whom I've not had some kind of disagreement – including all of the libertarian candidates. I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul, but I still have major disagreements with his platform. I usually vote for whoever is least socialist. I voted for Perot. Don't know if it was the charts, the ears or just the inability to bring myself to cast a vote for either Slick Willy or Read My Lips.
I hate elections.
Reagan was a rather likable personality.
I have run for office 3X as Libertarian.
I am currently registered as "Decline to State".