Let's talk term limits

[md2000]

When I was involved with a Canadian political party, I remember their attempts to recruit likely candidates for the provincial legislature. So, moderately important, possibility of a cabinet post depending on experience and abilities. Of course, CEO’s were unlikely to drop a successful career unless it was time to retire. Several people who were approached declined - they were on the way up in their organization, or they were counting down the time to their pension plan. As one fellow said “I have 8 years to go until I can take early retirement. Let’s say I actually win and then lose in 4 years, and hope to pick up in the same job - if it’s available - and I’ve postponed my retirement for those 4 years, possibly don’t have a job and pension to come back to.” (Remember pension plans?)

This sums up the problem of finding people to run for offices; they have to have an interruptible career, or be full time “lifer” politicians. In our case, the opposing party would recruit people from the teachers’ union - and school board contracts included a clause guaranteeing teachers a job if they returned from “political leave” to an elected position, as did many other civil service contracts. Many self-employed people or small business owners could not walk away from a business that required their constant attention. (Heck, even Trump is facing that dilemma).

So what do term limits do? If you are Prez, VP, or possibly senior senator, you can probably write your own meal ticket when your time is up, like giving those $400,000 speeches, or like Nixon in 1960, adding your name to a prestigious NYC law firm. But for a two-term member of Congress from Lower Podunk - you spend 8 years of your life doing service to the government, then what? You come out say, 35 or 40 years old and 8 years behind in your career. If anything, there’s even more incentive to use your time in office to pad your nest and curry favour with possible future employers, knowing you’ll need them shortly.

This doesn’t even address the problem that then a large part of your legislators have less experience in how government works, or know their way around the bureaucracy.

Term limits are probably good idea for the top dogs, but for the general run of the mill elected officials, probably as many bad points as good points to be made.

I think more important is that the USA get away from electing so many of the positions that in most other countries are appointed. The president nominates the cabinet, the federal prosecutors and judges, etc. Why would judges, prosecutors and sheriffs need to be elected anyway? The joke in Canada is that the US even elects their dogcatchers.

[DrDeth]

@k9bfriender

I
Was he the best for the job? Was he really the very best that an entire state had to offer for half a century?

Was there absolutely no room for anyone else? You say that it only would have annoyed republicans, but what about democrats who may have had ideas they wanted to run with, but were blocked out by this man who was destined by name and by birth to not give up his seat until his last breath.

Not saying he wasn’t a pretty good guy and politician, just saying that I am not convinced that he was the best man for that seat for the entire time he had it.

Let us say he was in the 90th percentile. Yes, he could have been improved upon, but the odds are against it.

[DrDeth]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

You would have, or could have, gotten rid of Obama anyway, given the geographical advantages favoring Republicans. Almost three million fewer votes, and you won anyway.
.

No, Obama would have galvanized those who stayed home or voted 3rd party.

[engineer_comp_geek]

Moderator Action

@Jim_B

BTW, I just realized I posted this in General Questions. I was actually aiming for GD, but somehow hit the wrong link.

I also was thinking, it might go well in IMHO. I am honestly not sure.

Moderator, please move it wherever you wish. And kindly give an explanation why you did (so I don’t make this mistake again:)).

I think it’s debatable enough for GD, so let’s give it a shot there. If there ends up not being enough debate for it, the mods there can kick it over to IMHO.

Moving thread from General Questions to Great Debates.

[DSYoungEsq]

California has had term limits for almost 20 years. I do not think that the result of that experiment would give much of anyone confidence that imposing term limits improves the political result in a state capitol.

[Bone]

Merged threads starting at post #76. Post #79, 82, and 83 are from original thread.

[/moderating]

[adaher]

I don’t know that term limits help with much. From what I’ve observed, there are four types of politicians:

1. newbies who are idealistic, smart, and learn quickly enough to do some good right away. I’d put Al Franken and Mike Lee in that category
2. Newbies who don’t think too hard, think they have all the answers, and won’t compromise on anything. Ted Cruz, Liz Warren.
3. Long serving who are mainly serving themselves and their careers. Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid
4. Long serving who have become extremely knowledgeable about certain issues and respect their opponents and work well with them. John McCain, Joe Biden.

Term limits solve problem#3, but also cost you some of the best minds and leaders. And there’s no guarantee you won’t get more of #2 than #1 out of the ones who replace them. I think term limit supporters think that the newbies will all be citizen legislators with only our best interests at heart, but more often you just get firebrands who talk a good game and not much else.

[igor_frankensteen]

@HumbleThinker

This is why I’m a little weary of the “professional politician” trope as it paints what I see as the issue a bit one-dimensionally. Length of time is not the whole issue, though it is certainly part of it. As I said to another post, I think government service, while important, is one of if not the most corrupting influence in society. It’s a huge part of what our nation was founded on. So if we are going to have people who serve for a long time in government, I think it prudent to move them around often, particularly as we get to the highest levels of government. This can of course become corrupted, and has at least since the time of Jackson, but that is a separate issue.

Another aspect is the quality of people we voters are putting into office. Political ambition has traditionally been seen as a trait of an easily corruptible politician that voters should avoid voting for. Such people will act in accordance with this ambition first and foremost instead of perhaps secondarily, tertiary or not at all. I see this and other issues as much more important than simply keeping out people who have served in the government for a long time for the reason you stated.

One thing I notice about the traditional usages of term limits is that it was not a life-long limit. For instance, an office might have a limit of “no more than 3 years in six” or something like that. So someone could serve a three year term, serve in another office or retire from political life for three years, then serve in that same office another three years later. Save for perhaps president, I find this method a bit better than life long term limits.

I think you have simultaneously made good points, and huge errors with this.

I think it's very important to watch out for assertions of "magic" at all times, and I think you have some assertions of "magic here.

I am defining “magic” as anything where the “magician” claims that a result will inevitably occur, despite there being no clear MECHANISM causing the result.

Time in office cannot be shown to mechanically cause corruption. Nor is there any mechanism to point to, which shows how being in office only a short time, prevents corruption.

You might as well claim that the longer an auto mechanic works on cars, the greater the likelihood that he will purposely sabotage vehicles, and that the newer the mechanic, the better the job he will do.

From what I’ve seen, although those who agitate for term limits have always CLAIMED to be acting in opposition to corruption, in reality they have always had only one goal: to unseat opponents that the People actually prefer over them.

A much better way to deal with corruption of the kind which term limits are supposed to address, would be to establish limits to what EXTRA power a person or party is awarded because of either time in control, or degree of dominance.

I’m thinking here, of the designed in power of the party in charge at certain times, to redesign voting districts, in order to make their dominance permanent. “Gerrymandered” areas are only the most obvious examples. Most voting districts can be distorted by the party in power to keep them in charge, without making “funny looking” shapes at all.

Perhaps we should try having the control of the shape of voting districts always be under the control of the MINORITY PARTIES, instead. That way, the majority party would have good reasons to try not to completely run roughshod over those who they defeated, and might have to actually try to win over the people who did NOT vote them in to power.