What are the reasons against term limits?
In my mind, term limits would lessen the corruption that exists in the government today. With no chance at getting re-elected, you’d be less likely to give up your ideals for a few dollars to change a vote.
Lifetime politicians shouldn’t even be a word grouping.
How long would these limits be? If they’re too low, then you’re effectively having these politicians constantly angling for their next job and playing right into the lobbyists hands, for they have no limits and know the ins and outs of the policy and what not. If the limits are too generous, then you haven’t changed a thing.
The primary reason to oppose term limits is that it forces competent, experienced people out of office. And you could argue it reduces voters’ options. I have mixed feelings on the whole idea but that’s the ‘con’ side.
And you’re probably overestimating how quickly some people will sell out their principles given the opportunity. 
The main reasons against term limits are that they are not mentioned in the Constitution (for Representatives and Senators, the President is limited by the 22nd Amendment) and that a person who is actually doing a good job should not be arbitrarily dismissed after a certain period of time.
The voters can vote them out any time they want to by voting the other way. Few politicians will voluntarily step down after a few terms so it falls on the voters, and with things like committee chairmanships (i.e., power) at stake based on seniority the people typically return their incumbents lest they not get the pork they’ve grown accustomed to.
Term limits restrict voter choice and push experienced public officials out the door who know the history of a lot of legislation on particular issues… i.e., brain drain. This leads to a loss of “institutional memory” as these new elected officials are pretty green behind the ears.
Candidates running to replace long-time elected officials have little or no experience doing that job and may rely on lobbyists to get them elected. Once in office, these new public officials may rely on their staff and the lobbyists who helped get them elected to get them up to speed on issues. Lobbyists can make inroads with long-term political staffers. So all the institutional memory lies with lobbyists and political staff instead of with the elected official. Basically, with terms limits, lobbyists arguably have more influence than without.
Also, long-term public officials knew their opposition pretty well and also knew how to get along with them to get things done. With terms limits, you get a bunch of rookies and hacks who don’t know each other and don’t care, leading to more partisanship and gridlock instead of workable compromise. There isn’t much opportunity or will to get to know and learn to compromise with your opposition if you are going to be out of office on a few years anyway.
This is one of the many problems in California politics.
The “musical chairs” game is interesting.
What’s Cruz Bustamante doing these days, anyway?
Of course term limits work great. The government of California is humming along like a well-oiled machine, isn’t it? 
Besides the lobbyists having the experience problem already mentioned, term limits seem to have meant that those at any level of government spend half their time working on getting into the next level, not being good at their actual jobs. California cycles through majority and minority leaders at an amazing pace, I suppose because by the time anyone has enough experience to get the job they are being termed out. If there were better relationships between members of opposing parties, and if the leadership had been there long enough to have accumulated favors, maybe some deals could have been worked out before we were on the brink of bankruptcy.
The OP mentions corruption. It will happen, but I think the temptation is at least as great for someone who need to get the money in the short time they have, with the confidence that in a few years they will be gone and clean again. It’s not at all clear to me that term limits reduce corruption.
Really? I’d say it’s the other way around. Just like how bad workers who think they are getting laid off soon have less inhibitions to help themselves to company property, but the career guy would think twice about killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
I think having legislatures chock full of new members every couple of years is a great way to increase the power of lobbyists, and decrease the scruples of lobbyists, too. If you are a hired gun for some cause, your incentive to build a truthful relationship with someone who is only going to be around for a couple years is considerably reduced.
We have term limits in California, and it transfers a lot of power and know how to bureaucrats and lobbyists, as the pols who get there have only a few years to learn how its done and then they are out. So expertise is not in the legislature.
It also hurts the minority party, as they do not have the depth in the minor league teams that the majority party has. That doesn’t currently make much difference in California as Republican political philosophy has been reduced to saying “no” to everything, including budgets, but in the long run it ruins the minority party. I’m a Democrat who thinks a strong Republican party is a necessary annoyance.
We’ve had term limits in the California legislature for about ten years now, and I don’t think anyone would say it’s led to better lawmakers. In fact, in my opinion it’s been a disaster.
The big problem is that without term limits all sense of continuity is lost. Every election brings in a new crop of legislators who are very eager but who have no idea how to actually do anything. They don’t know how to compromise, they don’t know how to convince, they don’t know how to twist arms, they don’t know how to pick battles – the basic skills of negotiating in a deliberative body with many points of view.
ETA: Also, what **The Second Stone **said.
I don’t think the solution is term limits, it’s campaign finance reform. Politicians, especially House members, spend too much time raising money and have to develop too many relationships with lobbyists in order to have enough money for media buys.
North Carolina has an interesting variation on the practice (which I think Alabama also has in place) – the Governor is limited to two consecutive terms, and may not run for a third term while serving out his second. There is no limit on the number of terms he can serve, but no more than two in a row. This allows us to put an experienced, competent governor back into office, while assuring that nobody nails down a hammerlock on the state house. Former Governor Jim Hunt served 16 years as governor – four four-year terms in two eight-year blocks, eight years apart from each other.
Term limits increase corruption! How else do you think nobodies get elected? They become part of a machine. When you have your own personal constituency developed over the years, you can much more easily tell the people – whether party bosses, lobbyists, corporate donors, whoever – who supported your campaign to go jump.
Furthermore, as many others have said, it means none of your legislators know what the hell they’re doing. At best, that means they’re completely dependent on unelected staff. More often, it means they’re dependent on outside experts, and moneyed interests are therefore granted much greater leverage than is their due. (Because they can afford to hire the lobbyists, and you can’t.)
–Cliffy
…and Michigan, too. By the time state representatives get in the swing of things, (3 terms max, 2 years each), they’re running for state senator (two terms, 4 years) and that ends that, unless they run for Attorney General or Governor or Secretary of State or something.
Also true. I think I’d like to see Polycarp’s model at work. How are things politically in North Carolina?
Look, government is a complicated business. Complicated business should be left to specialists. We could have a Congress chosen by lot, like jury duty, but that would not be a Congress, it would be a focus group.
I am going to show my political naivete here, but can’t the same argument be made for a President? I realize that the Constitution limits the President’s terms to two (and used to be four?), and that this language in the Constitution was put in place by the founders for fear of a monarchy, but…we wouldn’t have a monarchy if we allowed Presidents to continue to be voted back into office because we have the checks and balances system in place, and Presidents can be impeached at any time…right?
I don’t think there used to be any limit - the two was a custom based on Washington quitting after 2. But would we really have been better off if FDR stepped down in 1940? Unlikely.
I think the presidential (and a gubernatorial) term limit can be defended because you should get that position only after having some experience (actors and wrestlers excepted) and that you have more control than one legislator out of many.
I wonder if term limit advocates would like it if their heart surgeon was new because the old, experienced guy had gotten termed out after 10 years, and was now a podiatrist.