« Immigrants, Sacrifice, and a Brighter Future for our Kids. | Matthew Stavros's Blog | North Korea's Missile Test: A Multiple Choice Quiz »
Are term limits bad for democracy?
Term limits are elemental to a functional democracy. But can they also have ill effects on the public good?
One of the top priorities of a president's first term is to be reelected. During that period, it's critical they remain broadly popular by looking out for the interests of as much of the electorate as possible.
During a second term, all bets are off. Because reelection is not possible, a president can spend that time rewarding friends and allies with little regard for the political ramifications. Being in a position to accumulate vast and sustainable private influence, favor, and wealth can be well worth the cost of grave yet temporary unpopularity.
In principle, presidential terms are good for "capital-D Democracy." But are they good for our democracy?
One of the top priorities of a president's first term is to be reelected. During that period, it's critical they remain broadly popular by looking out for the interests of as much of the electorate as possible.
During a second term, all bets are off. Because reelection is not possible, a president can spend that time rewarding friends and allies with little regard for the political ramifications. Being in a position to accumulate vast and sustainable private influence, favor, and wealth can be well worth the cost of grave yet temporary unpopularity.
In principle, presidential terms are good for "capital-D Democracy." But are they good for our democracy?
Advertisement
Term limits are a terrible idea, put forth by those who can't win elections on their own.
Term limits are profoundly anti-democracy, in fact. Term limits tell us explicitly who we can't vote for, and on a purely arbitrary basis - the worst of all possible rationalizations.
The real solution is 100% public financing of all levels of political campaigns. This will do two things:
1) Elected officials will be able to spend their time on legislation and policy instead of fundraising.
2) Elected officials will not be able to buy their offices based on that fundraising, and instead will have to run on their records - or away from them, in some cases!
March 25, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in favor of term limits (for Congress too!).
But I agree with you, the real villain here is our electoral system and processes. There has to be a better way, where $$$$ or lack of it isn't the deciding factor in our ability to 'choose' our leaders.
March 25, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have term limits here in California and that, along with gerrymandering has been a disaster. Not only only are our representatives relatively inexperienced, but when they leave, their seat gets filled by another from the same party, so what did forcing them out really accomplish?
I used to be a fan of term limits. Now I'm not so sure. In fact, the idea of having Obama around for 12 years makes me smile :-). But on the other hand, the idea of having had Bush around for 12 sends me running for the bathroom...
March 25, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we don't enact term limits we will never get a handle on the corruption that is systemic. Term limits aren't any more anti-democratic than tort limits.
March 25, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know very well the two have nothing to do with each other. Can you make an actual argument?
March 25, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The short anwswer would be no. One problem that became apparent in California was that career politicians could no learn their roles and lobbyists ended up running the show. Not good.
March 25, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we had transparency in government we wouldn't need these people to learn roles. The mistake California made was in not banning lobbying. Until we abolish lobbying term limits won't matter.
p.s. They already run the show.
March 25, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, you're not going to abolish lobbying and you know it. Not without repeal of the First Amendment, and while I at times think you'd favor that, it isn't going to happen. The real question is how we minimize the power of lobbying and get control back to voters. And that begins (not ends) with 100% public financing.
Strawmen burn very easily.
March 25, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the point made above.
I wish we had term limits not only for the Presidency and Governorships but also for the congress, the senate and even the SCOTUS.
March 25, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think term limits for the SCOTUS would be a terrible idea :| While I think it might be good to bring their ivory tower a bit closer down to reality, they wield too much power to give them a 'life after the court'.
They're the final word, especially in today's highly-polarized society where we would be hard pressed to get any kind of non-trivial constitutional amendment ratified.
Term limits would mean partisan presidents filling the court with their stooges, and we'd have periodic reversals just like we do now with executive orders. Except the reversals would be on major decisions about things like abortion and civil rights.
March 26, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Term limits in California were enacted for one reason only: the Republicans wanted to drive Willie Brown out of the Assembly. Brown, who represented a highly Democratic bay area district, was undefeatable. The only option was to do an end-around with the term limits initiative.
Term limits is yet another tool to facilitate minority rule. It violates the constitution by stripping me of my right to vote for the candidate of my choice.
What we have now in California is a case of political musical chairs, where a relatively exclusive group of politicians term out of one office, only to run again for another. There isn't really any infusion of new blood--just the same old pols scrambling to stay in the system.
March 25, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
With term limits that place would just be more disorganized.
March 25, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is incredibly short-sighted to claim that term limits are bad for democracy on the grounds of removing a choice: not limiting terms removes many more choices because typically the incumbent is required to be supported, or just has overwhelming name recognition and related effects that nullify challengers.
Not to mention that the whole argument is completely ludicrous so long as the iron grip of the two-party system is not loosened. Even public financing is a moot point until this happens.
One aspect of my ideal little world is that the executive and legislative abstractions, so long as they are necessary, are handled effectively as apprenticeships. One person may hold a position for a single term consisting of two equally long phases: in the first, being tutored by the predecessor who at this point still wields the decision power, and in the second being the senior and tutoring the successor amidst performing the required functions.
March 25, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What color is the sky in "your little world"?
March 25, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You unnecessary snark aside, I think Karl Marx makes a great point about the two-party system.
This artificial club makes many problems worse than they should be, including time and cost of campaigning, election pressure trumping voter issues and the narrow range of choice, especially in ideological positions.
March 25, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never understood how term limits are a sign of a vibrant democracy. We either vote 'em in or we vote 'em out. I think eight years is as much as we could take of any president, but congress and state legislatures should be at the mercy of voters, not the calendar.
A bad legislator can do damage in any length of time, but a good one deserves to continue the good fight for as long as he/she and the majority of voters agree.
Too many effective leaders have had to go away before they've finished the tasks they signed on to do. Yes, we get stuck with some pretty awful slugs in the process, but that's the price we pay for giving citizens the power to vote.
March 25, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is a "bad legislator" an aquired skill or something one is born with?
March 25, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A 'bad legislator' is a product of evolution. Only those who have the ambition, desire, ability and will to attain and maintain an elected position actually do so.
The very process of doing so often requires or leads to a person putting their interest of moving up the ladder or maintaining their position ahead of what might be best for their constituents.
It's a bit scary to see what is becoming of our election circus, and reminds me of the Roman Republic towards the end of its collapse. Running for office became a very expensive proposition as many many votes had to be bought. As a result, victorious politicians were saddled with debt (actual and political) and therefore had to engage in conquest and pillage to repay those debts.
We're doing the same thing these days, it's just not *quite* so obvious pillaging.
March 26, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a great question that cannot be answered directly with agreeing on a few definitions.
We could start by looking at what we mean by an elected official, to whom term limits would apply.
Is an elected official a professional politician (and so no different from a janitor or a CEO) or is this a form of community participation in self-government (somewhat similar to jury duty for justice and courts)?
If we allow our elected folk to become professional career politicians, we should also recognize them as essentially lobbyists, who lobby on behalf of the people that elected them.
They are deal-makers, nothing more, and they too need to put bread on the table.
In that case - term limits are essential to prevent cronyism, nepotism and corruption.
But if we think an elected official as some kind of special breed of people, capable of a lifetime of benevolent and energetic action for the well-being of the nation - then term limits carry the risk of kicking a Lincoln out of office permanently on technicality.
It just so happens (surprise!!!) that republicans and democrats have different ideological interpretations of what an elected official is or supposed to be.
March 25, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
One possible benefit to term limits would be a constant and regular changing of ideas. This dynamic, I think, would allow the US way more flexibility than other countries and offers the opportunity to always lead the way.
Besides, didn't George Washington refuse a third term saying No man should be King... or something close to that?
March 26, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure how much changing of ideas we'd really see. It would be just the same two sets of ideas changing more frequently.
What we really need is a viable multi-party system, where it's not 'either or'. That would get more ideas into government and would require coalitions to be built in congress for anything to get done. That would lead to an overall moderation of policy too.
If our situation improves drastically over the next few years, and it appears that the democrats might be headed for a 'permanent majority', I wonder if it would be in the best interests of the GOP to try and foster the development of a third party instead of stifling them all?
March 26, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink