The state legislature of Idaho has overridden its local term limits law, placed there by popular referendum. I say, huzzah.
Term limits have always rubbed me the wrong way. They always seemed to me to be an admission of weakness in the voting population — “Stop me before I vote for the incumbant again!” They certainly make it easier to get rid of political duds, but they also punish decent leaders, too. They make neophyte officeholders more beholden to their unelected staff, who are the only ones left who understand how things work. They effectively rob the electorate of the ability to vote for — or against — whomever they choose.
Do incumbants have an advantage? Certainly. They are better known, and have a built-in access to the media and to lobbying money.
But the electorate can still make that choice — indeed, we have to assume they can make that choice, otherwise we concede that money and media actually run elections, that the People are simply sheep who will graze where directed.
In which case term limits are kind of meaningless anyhow, and we might as well keep the devils we know than bring in new devils we don’t.
you mean money and media don’t run elections….
color me cynical…
Let’s put it this way, for the cynics in the studio audience …
As long as we are going to maintain the polite fiction that the electorate can and does choose the best candidate, restricting that pool of candidates by disqualifying the ones with most experience seems counter-productive.
If we really believe that money and media run elections, then we should simply give up the whole election thing and let the monied interests decide who should run the country. We’d save a bit of money, that way.
yeah, I vote… I do… but the whole system grinds a hole in my stomach, I tell you…
The other part is that while your community may have term limits, that doesn’t mean there are term limits on a more regional/national level, where influence can be determined by length of time in office…meaning that you’re not getting as much for your local interests when your requirements work against it.
Mercifully, the Supremes have noted that term limits on federal offices are unconstitutional.
While there are certainly problems with folks who seem to grow fat at the public trough, I’m not sure what possesses people to think that politics is a field best suited for amateurs.
What’s the pay like in Idaho for state legislators? Can working-class people afford to run for office? Or stay in office? That’s always bothered me more than term limits or lack thereof.
In general, I disagree with ***Dave.
The problem is that in a democracy, politics *should* be run by amateurs–educated, intelligent, and usually experienced amateurs. Otherwise, why let the People vote?
Why not appoint professional voters? Let’s not have a democracy; let’s have the Grammys.
There are some people involved with government that I don’t think it’s necessary to elect: the beaurocracy. We don’t need to elect or place term limits on mail carriers. Or members of the armed services. Beaurocrats *should* be professionals, hired and fired like anyone in the private sector.
Why?
Every policy that a beaurocrat sets is under the auspices–no matter how far removed–of a politician, while politicians, in theory, should be
responsible to their electorate.
Rather than their peers. Or their beaurocracies.
(I’ll mention Bush and Enron, but you could pick nearly anyone.)
My opinion is that term limits, while hardly a political panacea, help reduce the number of professional politicians who hold themselves responsible mainly to their political party (rather than their electorate per se), special interests, and/or their political conntections.
I can see where I could be wrong: bouncing around from position to position might decrease any kind of loyalty a politician has to his or her constituents without preventing special-interest influences from lining his or her pocket.
Why is someone who is looking to be elected for the eighth time more beholden to their political party, special interests, or connections than someone who’s never been elected before?
What makes you think that those who run for office in a term limits arena are somehow more of the people than those who don’t?
Why should politics be run by amateurs? Why shouldn’t the People (get to) select professionals, folks who have demonstrated their ability to get the things done that they want done?
I take it for granted that power corrupts, which isn’t something everybody buys into. I operate pretty cynically with regards to politicians in particular and pretty idealisticly to politics in general.
Admittedly, in order to get elected, you have to have support–party support, personal connections, “causes” that will back you up. Nevertheless, in the (again, admittedly) small-town and state politics that I’ve been witness to, it’s the people who’ve been elected for term after term and position after position–the people who have the most experience–who are most likely to do what’s necessary to remain in office rather than what’s necessary to express the views of their electorate.
I don’t think that the people who run for office under term limitations are any more “of the people” or less likely to try to milk the system than the people who run for office without them. Aren’t they all citizens? Aren’t they all, by definition, “of the people”? I don’t argue that political newbies are going to more or even comparably competent.
Term limits are a kind of protection from the worst abuses–as well as the best skills–of politicians. I know it’s paradoxical to trust democracy enough to say that any random bobo that gets elected can do the job, but not to trust the people that support democracy to be seduced by brand name recognition, but there you have it. My opinion.
Hm…you also asked why I didn’t think the people should get to select professionals, folks who have demonstrated their ability to get the things done that they want done.
Well, I’m afraid of the politicians that would get things done that I didn’t elect them to do, and I’m afraid that those politicians would play off their incumbency long and hard enough to be able to ignore my opinion. I’d rather have the safeguard there than not.
Okay, power corrupts. But, bottom-line, it remains the responsibility of the electorate to “toss the bum out” if s/he stops representing them. If they can’t manage that, then simply giving them new faces is not going to solve a more fundamental problem with democracy.
I agree with you there.