The Time for Term Limits Is Now

Across the land, the cry is heard: Throw the bums out! The people are prepared to do exactly that on Tuesday, but there's a catch. There's little to stop today's insurgent from becoming tomorrow's bum. Or, as a pessimist once said, many reformers take office to do good and stay to do well.

Take heart, optimists, for there is an antidote to the corrupting disease of permanent poweritis. Term limits. They are a blunt instrument and they work.

They do it by forcing the turnover that the power of incumbency too often thwarts. By using gerrymandering, earmarks, favors for contributors and election laws to thwart challengers, too many incumbents get comfortable in office and make keeping it their mission.

Public service then become private service, which helps to explain how so many lifetime pols leave office filthy rich -- emphasis on filthy.

Presidents are limited to two terms by the Constitution's 22nd Amendment, passed in 1951, to stop another FDR, who shattered the tradition of two terms by winning four.

Sorry, I don’t believe in term limits (for any office).

IF - and that is the operative word - someone represents an example, in their history in their time in office, of attempting to sustain their time in office for no greater purpose and on no better foundation of principles and policy history than that over-riding personal political objective - their own power and keeping it, then yes, throw the bum out.

But, it is just as foolish to make the assumption that a lengthy incumbency automatically, simply due to its length, has no rightful foundation in principles and policy history (principles and policy history that even you would support) as it is to assume that that persons replacement will be better just because they are “new”.

If you want change, specific change in your elected officials’ political principles and policy preferences then by all means vote for someone “new”. But, if your idea of the best person for the job IS the person in that job, then by all means support them, no matter how long they’ve been on the job.

Anything else is silly, grasping at straws POPULIST nonsense and has nothing to do with, nothing intrinsically to do with, democracy, representative democracy, limited government or Conservatism, as well as no foundation in Conservative principles of government.

Hey, I know...why don't we just do away with voting altogether and we can have each party occupy Congress and the White house for four years. Four years for the Democrats, four years for the Republicans, four years for the Green Party, four years for the Socialist Labor Party, four years for the Communist Party of the U.S.A., four years for the Libertarian Party, four years for the Workers World Party, etc,. etc,. etc....

Then, when we get to the end of the list (if we ever do) we can turn around and do it all over again.

Makes about as much sense as what you're proposing here today...

“I respectfully disagree, politics should not be a career.”

I respectfully disagree. I am very glad that some of the finest Conservatives that I have seen in government DID make serving in their elected office “a career”. I think their constituents and the nation benefited from their service and nothing says that “term limits” would have improved on what they offered. In many cases I never once liked their opponents, not even their opponents in their primary elections; which clearly suggests that “term limits” is no panacea for getting what we need.

Its a chimera. It may satisfy feelings (oh good, someone “new”!!!). Nothing says it will satisfy anything else.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.