Yesterday, I wrote an article calling for term limits, and one reader responded, disagreeing. We went back and forth a bit. I think this is a good topic for a conversation. David started with his email subject heading reading: Term limits are STUPID, How could you endorse them?
He wrote:
Getting rid of Rich people only, now enforced because campaign contributions cannot be diverted to paying one's bills, so one MUST be independently wealthy to RUN for office is one thing.
Making the entire focus of a term of office JUST THAT TERM (or 2), and limiting the sense of history of the body to JUST ONE TERM(or 2) is STUPID.
Talk about Skewing the system to immediate gratification! Geeze Man? What did you do instead of thinking this through? Brush your teeth?
Please, get real about term limits!
I replied:
of course, term limits should be accompanied by total removal of money interests from the system. Equal funds for each qualified candidate.
History can be instilled through historians, consultants, advisors, in a lot of ways. Incumbents have too much power
He replied:
Do you want a dentist who has zero to two years of training, or ten? A Boss? Legal Council in a lawsuit? Make your own list. Experience is not a bad thing. Being corrupt is.
My reply:
In sports, age eliminates players, sometimes after just a few years.
In politics, the power of incumbency ruins the honest election process. While of course, there is a big benefit to experience, there are other ways to deal with retaining it. We could literally pay the best legislative minds to be consultants to congress. But they would not vote. THey'd get respectable paychecks, maybe with the understanding that extra years of service to the government would supplement their pensions. This might be a lot better than the young kids who act as aides to some current legislators.
One thing I do know. It is no longer possible for challengers to have serious hopes of beating all but the worst incumbents. That does not make for building the best legislature.
What do you think?
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
and am still somewhat reticent about, athletes staying in the game...or jumping back in. The real problem with it that I see, however, is the fanfare over leaving and returning. If the athlete still has what it takes, while getting older, to play the game, then let it happen. It's quite possible my being in my mid-forties has something to do with my stance, but I see the benefit of allowing "older blood" to continue when possible.
I relish the notion of a politician who deserves our love and respect deciding to stick around. The requirement that they leave would give yet another reason to protest. Seeing as there are no total saints in politics, and the police and politicians are all "abstracted" from the human race... I'd love to see a time when we can do better, but the best telescope...I regret my pessimism, but I'm a rotten liar.
I agree and disagree. To be able to lawfully tell someone to "get out" on time, and to have the choice of strongly encouraging a worthy representative to stay in.
by
Rachel Gladstone-Gelman (37 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 29 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 8:26:46 AM
I’ve gone back and forth and have settled on opposing term limits. They would have forced out of office extremely good guys like Sen. Bill Proxmire who spent just $500 total during his last two terms, and in between voted in the best interest of his constituents. However, guys like Robert Byrd must go. How to fix the system? Add to the voting ticket a “None of the above” option. If NOTA gets over 50% of the votes, a new election must be called with none of the previous candidates allowed to run again. Even if Byrd ran unopposed and got less than 50% of the vote, he would be ousted and a new election called with new candidates. Think about this. If we had term limits, not only would we end up with a bunch of inexperienced congressmen, they’d be heavily influenced by their unelected staff. As well, during their last term they would no longer be accountable to the voters and would more likely vote in their own best interests (on taxes, etc).
by
Jack Lohman (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 9:15:38 AM
Like others, I am ambivalent on this term limits issue........generally.
However, in the instant case, the 2008 elections, I am totally in favor of throwing all the incumbents out.
I know, baby with the bathwater and all that, but we can afford to lose a (very) few decent ones, if it means getting rid of all the dreck that infects the legislative branch at this time.
by
B York (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 10:02:02 AM
I worked in a system that has successive term [2] limits for Governor; Oregon. Tom McCall [R] was a terrific Gov. for two terms then had to leave because of term limits; his successor, Straub[D], was ok, then McCall once again eligible, was beaten in the Republican primary by Attilla the Hun and never could again get elected to any partisan office of importance. Unfortunately, Attilla was elected to two terms and undid much of the good that McCall had done. Case rested! The barbarians had won.
by
Kenneth Briggs (125 articles, 88 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 108 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 10:14:43 AM
I see no good reason for having 'career' politicians occupying the same seat in government for more than 2-3 terms. I'm also against lifelong pensions being paid to these same people for their service -have 'em try living on Social Security like the rest... and quit letting them vote for their own pay raises while stomping on any hope that a 'living wage' might be established in place of the federal minimum wage.
Term limits might not eliminate corruption -but it would certainly make it a bit harder for the lobbyists to constantly try to bend new ears their way... Campaign Finance Reform (TRUE REFORM -NOT THE BS WE WITNESSED NOT SO LONG AGO) would make the biggest difference, I think. It would be absolutely necessary if Term Limits were to have any chance -as we'd continually see a revolving door of the wealthy (much as we do now) if the rules remained the same...
For any real change, I think only both policies instituted together would bring us a brighter political atmosphere -one in which we could find some hope...
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 678 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 10:16:37 AM
All terms of incumbency should depend on merit. If they are good, let them stay, but the minute they prove their unsuitability, out with them. And if they betray the trust of those who elect them and rely on them for their welfare, as in so many present instances, then out with them to the gallows or the block.
Notice I say 'the minute', and not 'at the end of the specified term' -
So get outing. And then draft and warn a new batch.
by
amazin (34 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 400 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 11:07:35 AM
I believe that the decision should rest with the voters. I do not like things that are done by fiat such as term limits, mandatory death penalty and other things that remove evaluation and choice from the public.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 11:34:39 AM
Whether you agree with term limits, there is overwhelming evidence for limiting the President to one term. Had this been the case, George Bush would not now be President.
There's a comparison to be made of term limits and appointing attorneys general. As I've said before and has proven to be true, it makes no difference for Bush to appoint a new attorney general because he'll just be another Republican. Mukasey has shown that he is true to his Republican roots, has no intention of prosecuting criminal Republicans and supports Bush in all his delusions.
The same is true of having term limits. It doesn't matter that you have new people in elected office, they're still going to be just more politicians. The longer they stay in office and the more experience they gain, the easier it is for them to finagle and manipulate the system to benefit themselves, their pet lobbyists, special interests, and worst of all, their ideological agenda. Experience in being a politician is to be avoided at all costs. The evidence for this is that George Bush is the ultimate example of an experienced politician. He is that and nothing else, and he has used that experience to devastating effect.
The best experience a public official can have is being an ordinary person like us. That's what being representative means. That is the only kind of person who can be representative for and of us. None of the holders of public office and none of the people running for President have that experience. They are not representative of us and yet they are pretending to represent us. Members of congress are only representative of members of congress, people who make $165,200 a year and who don't have to go to work every day to earn it. That's not us.
As long as we have politicians running our country we have what can be called politicoarcy, rule by politicians, instead of democracy, rule by the people.
There is a slight chance that by having term limits and having a faster turnover in congress, it could more frequently produce a few representatives who have the interests of the people as a priority. But, as we've seen with Reid and Pelosi, it's not bloody likely.
by
Ed Martin (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 140 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 11:42:18 AM
I favor public funding of capaigns. If politicians are going to be beholden to their funders, I want those funders to be the taxpayers. At a cost of $5 per taxpayer per year, that's be a terrific bargain.
How about term limits for those who choose private funding and no term limits for those who opt for public funding?
(I know, but it'd be worth a try.)
by
Jack Lohman (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 11:54:08 AM
If you stick around long enough you can build a list of lovers that will make you think you're the God whom they NEED to survive or become the lovee that thinks they're St. Peter and you NEED them to get into heaven. I don't like the idea of endless terms for the very simple reason that change sharpens all of us. John Warner has become complacent in his service.
Aren't they here to serve us? Isn't it all about the few representing the many so that the majority create the laws? Isn't that what the Republic is all about? Doesn't the majority change as events alter? Shouldn't representatives follow suit?
I also kinda think it would be a good idea to limit the offices and terms in which a person can serve before they get kicked outta government service. I look back at Rumsfeld and shake my head at his incestous service run. I mean, these guys are so intertwined they're tied at the umbical cord! We need honesty, integrity, belief in, and the willingness to uphold our Constitution and share our world.
I don't think you get that with sexy 70 yr. olds that have been kissin' the same asses for the same reasons for 50 yrs.
by
joanakelly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 11:55:05 AM
This is a tough one, but the framers of the Constitution did not intend political office to be a lifetime appointment like the Supreme Court. However, they did expect to have an educated, well informed electorate, which would guard against tyrants and scoundrels. Unfortunately, that informed electorate thing is not working out as planned.
My vote is, maybe… America should definitely debate this issue, along with campaign finance reform (public funding only), election reform, and a serious look at curbing the President’s power to go to war unilaterally… among other pressing issues.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 610 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 11:56:14 AM
We have it here. The main result that I can see is the legislature is more dependent on interest groups to help them "understand" the issues. And all the energy that went into the initiative to establish term limits just diverted the energy toward public financing of campaigns. And many of the activists for term limits have been de-activated by the discouraging results.
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 80 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 1:40:20 PM
Term limits is not just an American concern it applies to Governments world wide.
We in Australia have or are hopefully about to end the 10 year reign of John Howard whose cynical right wing government has made us the poodle of George Wand political laughing stock of Asia. Seeing it’s self as Bush’s regional deputy sheriff, more likely the comedy relief.
Howard’s government has survived by playing all the parochial fears and self interested cards possible while ignoring humanistic issues. Getting him out 7years ago would have simply changed the logo and the rhetoric. The effect would have been similar.
Many on Oped are now bemoaning the Dems as also being in the same corupted boat as the GOP. If you like it's a choice between Tweedle dumb and Tweedle Dumber.
As I said yesterday would change little in that the problem is more fundamental in that political ossification is more because of the system that puts inappropriate candidates there in power. In the case of leaders yours as ours, are increasingly being selected on prefabricated personality sound bites rather than anything realistic.These artificial 20sec grabs are contrived, controlled and paid for by vested interests who interests have little to do with the well being of the people.
It is a fact that the more extreme (spin translation “committed”) tend to be more prepared be aggressively politically active (Spin translation “better organized”). This applies to both sides from those who picket abortion clinics jostling, abusing the patients to the ‘greenies’ who blow up bulldozers in the forests.
Changing the calcified personnel simply exchanges the faces not the intent or the emphasis of government.Something clearly has to be done other than abuse regardless of its motivation because personal attack and extremism stifles debate and turns the vast majority of people off.Truth is independent of national boundaries mine and yours.
There is no such a thing as black or white in morality just shades, the trick is to find the right shade.
Because of international Time lag I often miss the debates. But I have suggested my proposed solutions before. I am not simply criticising but I am attempting to engage in a solution that might hopefully flow onto Australia.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 3:54:49 PM
We've come so far from the original concept of the citizen-politician during America’s founding that either (a) there is a need for term limits to dilute the power concentrated by long-seated politicians or (b) make politicians part-time Federal employees, with adjusted salaries, of course, and let them determine if they need to supplement their incomes to make ends meet.
This would bring them back to the reality of being a typical American.
This is not unlike New Hampshire's approach to legislating.And the benefit is that we’d get to keep those pesky salaries low.The base salary for a NH legislator is $100 per year.Not bad for helping to reduce that Federal deficit! http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=179978
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1719 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 4:05:51 PM
Seriously though If i lived there I couldn't afford to be a legislator...doesn't that mean only the rich could afford to sit there?
I agree the citzen poli is an artifact of the past..gone..dead ..burried.
but my concern is that its not the pli per see but the system that elects them. This means they need to sell out to special issues (compromise their integrity) to get there. Once there the mumified party system (an interest group in it own right then forces 'party line votes' which usually have more to do with one upmanship than public good. Wasn't it Goeoge washington who raled against parties?
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 4:32:22 PM
I have been for and against term limits. I am currently against them. If you are getting good representation then they should be allowed to run again.
Term limits is an attempt to solve the problem of our government being controlled by special interests (including the two party system). Term limits could make it worse.
The real solution is to eliminate Special Interest Group involvement in the election process. Some say that this requires public financing. I am against public financing. I am for financing by registered eligible voters of the candidates which they support or of issues which they support or oppose. There would need to be a cap on the maximum amount that a person can contribute to anyone candidate or issue.
by
Anton Grambihler (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 283 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 5:06:22 PM
... it's just through the back door, when you pay for the subsidies that the contributors received from the politicians. Besides, in Arizona the taxpayers don't pay, they have a surcharge on criminal and traffic fines. If you don't want to contribute, don't speed. :-)
by
Jack Lohman (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 7:51:36 PM
There should definitely be term limits for the president to prevent the president from possibly becoming a dictator. The most important important thing however is ending corporations ability to influence the political system. End private funding of elections. All political candidates must be given equal access to the media and all candidates must be allowed to participate in debates. All ballot access restrictions should be eliminated for candidates and political parties. No person should be required to pay a fee to run for political office. Most importantly everyone's vote must be accurately counted. Stop vote fraud.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 821 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 6:34:15 PM
that term limits are a lazy fix for an uninvolved electorate. You write in your first reply that "of course, term limits should be accompanied by total removal of money interests from the system. Equal funds for each qualified candidate."
It strikes me that if you can accomplish that, the major justification for term limits sails out the window. We have real problems in governance today and the answer is to fix the real problems, not to try to 'prevent' them by applying various quick-fixes.
by
Jim Freeman (108 articles, 51 quicklinks, 221 diaries, 382 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 7:17:43 PM
In addition to his lucid and well posed response to term limits I would only add that where else does one gain experience enabling one to do a better job and then lose the ability to do that better job?
With longevity comes committee assignments , chairing those committees and a more long range view of issues and answers. It is not a solution to limit politicos to two terms it is a drawback. The real solution to what ails us politically lies in freeing the process from its dependancy on money, then let the voters decide who serves and for how long.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Friday, October 19, 2007 at 8:32:13 PM
Good idea? Yes, if linked to other things for federal, state, local offices: Public financing of campaigns; limited to one six-year term; can't roll over to a different office without a four-year hiatus; nix electoral college; limit campaign season to eight weeks; lobby reform.
And, a bunch of other things you guys can add to the list.
California proves term limits don't work. The L.A. City Council was limited to two, four-year terms. Then they put the misleading Prop. R on the ballot in the guise of lobby reform, which gave them an extra four-year term. Now they can run three times for a total in 12 years in office.
Repeatedly, when any state or local legislator is termed-out, he simply rolls over his war chest and runs for another office.
by
Sandy Sand (143 articles, 0 quicklinks, 196 diaries, 1382 comments)
on Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 9:28:32 AM
22 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (