More than 80% of voters want term limits placed on members of Congress.
There’s one already on the president.
A majority want limits on Supreme Court justices.
In my state there are limits on legislators.
There has been a recent local push to apply them to school board members.
I am opposed to term limits for any elected office, and I am definitely in the minority.
There are many arguments in favor of them.
Those in Washington do not represent the interests of the people. But whose fault is that? Folks want to throw the bums out, as long as the bums aren’t their own representatives. If they elect a bad person and he gets removed by term limits, why should we expect them to elect a better one next time?
It’s important to pass the torch to the next generation and open minds to new ideas. Certainly true as the current Democratic leadership proves daily. However, youth does not imply wisdom and often needs guidance from those with experience. Look at several of the new crop in Congress.
It’s what the people want. If so, the people have a method to accomplish it. We call it voting. Blame the right people: the voters.
It gets rid of the career politicians. Really? Doesn’t seem so to me. Politicians hang around forever. They simply change jobs. And instead of working at the job they have, gathering the experience required to do it better, they waste huge amounts of their time and our money planning their next move when limits force them to run for a different position.
More options for voters since now many entrenched run unopposed. Again, whose fault is that?
Money usually follows the incumbent. Certainly true. But it’s the voters who must rationalize not electing someone with enough strength of character to resist the lure of the dollar. And there’s no guarantee someone new will be any better.
Long time office holders treat it as a career. I wonder what’s wrong with that. Do we say doctors are evil because they have a career, or anyone who is loyal to his employer? In fact, doesn’t time in the same field develop expertise? Anyone examining the myriad problems affecting our country or community understands thorough knowledge is important. So it seems to me it’s not at all bad to have someone stay in the same job. And again, voters can end a career if they want.
Length of time in office increases opportunities for corruption, corporate interference, and lobbyists. From what I’ve seen, those evils thrive just fine with term limited representatives.
At the local level, limits will increase the opportunity for good people to come forward and lead. I agree to some extent with this, but, if these folk are so good, why can’t they demonstrate that without the assistance of limits?
Less opportunity for an office holder to outlast his usefulness. Not sure what that means. Usefulness isn’t a function of time, it’s one of capability and strength of character—and sometimes experience.
Encourages people to vote. What? We have to make openings so citizens will employ one of the most precious rights they have? Terrible! And sad.
If a politician knows he’s out soon, he’ll feel less constrained and will advance beneficial policies. So this is saying he hasn’t the strength of character to do that all along? And this is a two-edge scimitar. A person could just as easily have hidden his evil intent and then wreak havoc in the last term. Can you imagine what our current president might do if he thought he was coming to the end of his “service?” That’s one of many reasons why we must in the next election make sure he does not reach his term limited exit.
I understand the current disgust with the political landscape, some at the local level but more at the state and national. Although I’ve argued against all the points in favor of term limits, I recognize some of my arguments are flimsy. But none of the arguments gets at what is my main concern.
I am terrified of losing faith in the voters to control our destiny. Term limits say in no uncertain terms that the voters cannot be trusted. While a stack of evidence reveals the probable truth of this accusation, the dangers of “fixing” it by artificial means is frightening. It is saying, “You voters messed up, but we’ll make it right for you and you’ll only have to give up a little of your control.” But I worry that giving up a little today will be followed by a little more tomorrow, and then a little more the day after.
This is no idle concern. Legislators work fervently to reduce our power. This couldn’t have been made clearer in my state’s recent legislative session where past citizens’ initiatives were watered down and future ones made more difficult to achieve.
So think about the supposed benefits of term limits, and be cautious about what you want.
There’s one already on the president.
A majority want limits on Supreme Court justices.
In my state there are limits on legislators.
There has been a recent local push to apply them to school board members.
I am opposed to term limits for any elected office, and I am definitely in the minority.
There are many arguments in favor of them.
Those in Washington do not represent the interests of the people. But whose fault is that? Folks want to throw the bums out, as long as the bums aren’t their own representatives. If they elect a bad person and he gets removed by term limits, why should we expect them to elect a better one next time?
It’s important to pass the torch to the next generation and open minds to new ideas. Certainly true as the current Democratic leadership proves daily. However, youth does not imply wisdom and often needs guidance from those with experience. Look at several of the new crop in Congress.
It’s what the people want. If so, the people have a method to accomplish it. We call it voting. Blame the right people: the voters.
It gets rid of the career politicians. Really? Doesn’t seem so to me. Politicians hang around forever. They simply change jobs. And instead of working at the job they have, gathering the experience required to do it better, they waste huge amounts of their time and our money planning their next move when limits force them to run for a different position.
More options for voters since now many entrenched run unopposed. Again, whose fault is that?
Money usually follows the incumbent. Certainly true. But it’s the voters who must rationalize not electing someone with enough strength of character to resist the lure of the dollar. And there’s no guarantee someone new will be any better.
Long time office holders treat it as a career. I wonder what’s wrong with that. Do we say doctors are evil because they have a career, or anyone who is loyal to his employer? In fact, doesn’t time in the same field develop expertise? Anyone examining the myriad problems affecting our country or community understands thorough knowledge is important. So it seems to me it’s not at all bad to have someone stay in the same job. And again, voters can end a career if they want.
Length of time in office increases opportunities for corruption, corporate interference, and lobbyists. From what I’ve seen, those evils thrive just fine with term limited representatives.
At the local level, limits will increase the opportunity for good people to come forward and lead. I agree to some extent with this, but, if these folk are so good, why can’t they demonstrate that without the assistance of limits?
Less opportunity for an office holder to outlast his usefulness. Not sure what that means. Usefulness isn’t a function of time, it’s one of capability and strength of character—and sometimes experience.
Encourages people to vote. What? We have to make openings so citizens will employ one of the most precious rights they have? Terrible! And sad.
If a politician knows he’s out soon, he’ll feel less constrained and will advance beneficial policies. So this is saying he hasn’t the strength of character to do that all along? And this is a two-edge scimitar. A person could just as easily have hidden his evil intent and then wreak havoc in the last term. Can you imagine what our current president might do if he thought he was coming to the end of his “service?” That’s one of many reasons why we must in the next election make sure he does not reach his term limited exit.
I understand the current disgust with the political landscape, some at the local level but more at the state and national. Although I’ve argued against all the points in favor of term limits, I recognize some of my arguments are flimsy. But none of the arguments gets at what is my main concern.
I am terrified of losing faith in the voters to control our destiny. Term limits say in no uncertain terms that the voters cannot be trusted. While a stack of evidence reveals the probable truth of this accusation, the dangers of “fixing” it by artificial means is frightening. It is saying, “You voters messed up, but we’ll make it right for you and you’ll only have to give up a little of your control.” But I worry that giving up a little today will be followed by a little more tomorrow, and then a little more the day after.
This is no idle concern. Legislators work fervently to reduce our power. This couldn’t have been made clearer in my state’s recent legislative session where past citizens’ initiatives were watered down and future ones made more difficult to achieve.
So think about the supposed benefits of term limits, and be cautious about what you want.
RSS Feed