Why do I keep hearing ‘liberty’ minded candidates talk about term limits? I don’t see how that is going to change anything. Wouldn’t it just make people less accountable? There would be an even higher percentage of lame duck people that would have no accountability to the public via remaining popular. Its sort of a double edged sword because without term limits, you get career politicians who have more time to become familiar with the best ways to get their fingers into more things and who will ‘do anything just to get reelected,’ but on the other hand, with term limits, the unaccountable politicians are even less so and the Hoppean idea of how people in democracies have a very short sided view which screws the people over more than a monarch would seem to be exaggerated further.
I understand where you’re coming from about candidates becoming less accountable when there are term limits, but I feel like there’s more danger to come of the situation than if we had no term limits at all. When you think about how President Franklin D. Roosevelt was in power in our country for nearly as long as Hitler was in power in Germany, that’s scary. Especially regarding the fact that the highest income tax rates were at like 90% (I think that’s correct) during his presidency. So, for that reason, I support presidential term limits. However, I don’t support term limits for Congress because they do learn how to pull strings better after a lot of experience.
I was reading that the Founding Fathers didn’t want us to elect Congress directly, and that they instead wanting each state legislature to do so. What do you think about that situation?
None of statism makes sense Joe.
Austro-Libertarian political analysis, and Austrian economic analysis typically address the root of problems, where most mainstream econ and policy discussion concerns symptoms.
Term limits are a second best for an irrational system. The question is whether it is possible to reform a fundamentally irrational system. Most libertarians would say that you cannot create a moral and economically efficient socialism, and yet with the American Republic, they try to scientifically and democratically achieve just such a thing.
@Brian Anderson, here’s what a friend of mine wrote on the 17th Amendment: http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/state-sovereignty-and-the-senate
For what it’s worth ^_^.
Off the top of my head, the pro-term-limit people could argue:
-
With less time in power, there is less loot for the politician to plunder and fewer deals to make with lobbyists and businesses. This lowers the profitability of going into legislative politics, meaning some may choose other careers.
-
With seats being turned over regularly, legislative positions may be less prestigious than they currently are. A senator or representative won’t be in power long enough to be seen as a mainstay or a legend or anything like that; he’s just another guy sitting in for a few years, with little chance to prove himself more adept at the game than others. Again, this lowers the desirability of going into legislative politics.
-
How much accountability is there anyway? People have been charged with violating the law and were still reelected. Yes, every now and again Congressmen vote differently than they otherwise would because their constituents hold their feet to the fire, but how often is that? Doesn’t it all come out in the wash anyway? (the Oct 2008 bailout comes to mind) Even if you believe this is an effective check, the opposite is just as true:
-
Without the specter of reelection, more Congressmen might vote honestly. Yes, they would feel less pressure to please their constituents, but this can be a good thing: it might mean less pork, less redistribution, less spending. It is in the nature of the democratic state to become more redistributive, as politicians get elected by promising some groups more favors at the expense of other groups. It’s possible that, knowing their time is up, legislators wouldn’t bother buying their reelection.
Not that I think these are all that plausible, but I don’t think they’re totally unfounded.
I don’t pay much attention to the specifics of the workings of DC, but I do remember something vague of the powers at be twisting arms of people that weren’t up for reelection so that they cold vote FOR the healthcare bill because they wouldn’t have to worry about losing the next election.
I think it is mostly a waste of time for people to focus any time on it.
I would like to see elected officials’ terms limited to zero