Sunday, January 02, 2022

Term Limits

I have liked John Fund for a long time, though I only follow him occasionally.  He makes a good case for term limits at the level of Congressional elections. I generally don't like the principle.  A state should be able to vote for whoever it damn well pleases. But I acknowledge that this should not necessarily be an overriding consideration, as governing si about practicalities as well. If they can accomplish this along Constitutional lines, I will happily withdraw my objection.  I don't see that imposing this on presidential elections has hurt us.

10 comments:

Grim said...

My father used to say that a a Congressman should be able to serve as many years as he could get re-elected, provided that he then served an equal number of years in prison.

Christopher B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christopher B said...

It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between the question of reelecting a President who could then be elected again (and again ...) versus reelecting one who will be out of office, permanently, in four years even if there is a strong tradition of leaving office after eight years.

Roughly half of the twenty-four Presidents elected before FDR who could have been reelected were not. Of the twelve Presidents who could have been reelected after FDR only four were not (counting LBJ and Nixon as reelected, Ford and GHWB as not). Death in office was more common prior to FDR (six vs one) but only Lincoln died during his second term.

Mike Guenther said...

Neither members of the House or the Senate were meant to be full time careers. Some of these fossils have spent a lifetime in their respective seats. They seem to spend more time on getting reelected than they do working on "the people's business", which on some reflection, might be a good thing.

Some people elected to The House, went in as paupers and are now some of the richest people in the country. There's something wrong with that picture. The only time they vote for something important to their constituents, is if it's good for them personally and financially.

I think (3) terms as a Representative in The House is plenty, and (2) terms in the Senate. That is six years and twelve years, respectively.

There are term limits in most states and cities for Governor and Mayor. I even approve of term limits for a position such as the County Sheriff, even though we have a good one.

Dr. Red Guy said...

The issue with a state-called constitutional convention is that it is "a Convention for proposing Amendments". While the article states that the proposal is for a single amendment convention, I'm not sure that would be constitutional. The explanation I've gotten in the past is that such a convention would have to entertain any and all proposed amendments, which is why it's A) such a threat to the US congress, and B) gives people the heebie-jeebies, since all sorts of craziness could get thrown into the mix.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

"...are now some of the richest people in the country." As are their relatives. Amazing how many of their uninspiring daughters and nephews turned out to just be late bloomers, eh?

Aggie said...

The issue of term limits could be solved without imposing limits. Full financial disclosure and transparency of personal and family wealth would fairly quickly weed out the politicians that are in it for influence-peddling and wealth-building. Alternatively, there could be a requirement to place all wealth into blind trusts while in office, and publish the holdings for all to see. The big problem with the Federal Government is the tendency toward permanency of positions, both elected and appointed, not by people who wish to serve, but by people adept at consolidating their personal influence and power. I think those who 'wish to serve' typically do, and then go home after a term or two. There are insufficient checks and balances with those who get dug in, no objective performance assessments and no transparency on the wealth-building.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

That's a good point. Once you've been a Senator, you can still get a heckuva job in DC even if you don't get re-elected. There is so much money flowing around that anyone who has any influence can get some. But come to think of it, I'm not sure there is anything that will plug those holes.

dmoelling said...

For today's big congressional districts, it's very difficult to get noticed unless you have had a prior political office (mayor, etc). Plus unless you are a lawyer it represents a career disruption that for many is significant. You can get a job if you lose reelection but the best will be as the classic lobbyist role.

Term limits force the public to see new faces and will free the lawmaker from needing to make a 20 year career plan around congress. Here in Connecticut the old way of electing state legislators by town make a big chunk of the population vote between people they knew of. The change to a population based district when gerrymandered destroyed this completely.

james said...

If you support the right things, there will be goodies waiting for you when you leave office. Book deals, university sinecures, a little heads-up on stocks or invitation to get in on the ground floor ... And probably whatever is left from the money raised for your election campaigns.
I read the Starr report years ago, and two of the things that jumped out at me were the use of focus groups to decide whether to tell the truth, and how quick and easy it was to find a plum job as a favor.