Politics 2023

[Geo]

Sadly the Secret Service has had some scandals this century. Many SS agents are [Sleezebag] supporters. I doubt that the ones who don't support him wish to risk their lives for him.

In a department with many thousands of people, no surprises there.

[Rusty Edge]

Well, it's nice to know that there were/are enough Republicans in Congress with enough remnants of ethics to keep election denier Jim Jordan from becoming Speaker of the House.

Also Kenneth Chesebro, the architect of the fake elector scheme has taken a plea deal in Georgia.

[Buster's Uncle]

And Sydney Powell.  Bad week to be a Nazi.

[Geo]

Almost there, Jack...

[bvanevery]

The dangers of legislative term limits are many, however. First, they constrain choice, which is inherently anti-democratic.

WHAAAA?  Do you live somewhere where a legislative seat is flipping between Democrat and Republican (and nothing else) frequently?  My driver's license address has this old Republican windbag, Virginia Foxx, who's been there since 2005.  Her incumbency is clearly constraining my choice.  She's unassailable.  She'll have to retire or die.  I don't even know if that should be the case with SCOTUS justices.  I definitely have no taste for it in legislators.

Second, they are likely to make elected officials more dependent upon lobbyists and consultants to build relationships with other legislators, and to develop both issue and procedural knowledge.

I don't even know what this means or could possibly mean.  Every elected official is already deeply in the sack with lobbyists and consultants already.  I can't even imagine a theory, of there being more of it, or how you would justify a comparison against some kind of control group.  In other words, I pronounce this concern to be Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

legislators will gum the works of government by preening for the next sinecure,

Again, "as if" that's not done already.

[Trenacker]

WHAAAA?  Do you live somewhere where a legislative seat is flipping between Democrat and Republican (and nothing else) frequently?  My driver's license address has this old Republican windbag, Virginia Foxx, who's been there since 2005.  Her incumbency is clearly constraining my choice.  She's unassailable.  She'll have to retire or die.  I don't even know if that should be the case with SCOTUS justices.  I definitely have no taste for it in legislators.

Pros and cons stack up on each side. Term limits are great for helping to "get the [progeny of unmarried parents] out." They're problematic when you decide the incumbent is good at their job and want them to keep delivering.

But beyond that, there is a bigger issue: democratic accountability is forward-looking. If, once elected, I know that there is no reward of reelection waiting for me after the end of my term, you lose the biggest lever you have to influence me in the direction you'd prefer I go. More on this below.

I don't even know what this means or could possibly mean.  Every elected official is already deeply in the sack with lobbyists and consultants already.  I can't even imagine a theory, of there being more of it, or how you would justify a comparison against some kind of control group.  In other words, I pronounce this concern to be Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

It means that being a legislator is like any other career path: experience matters. Although there are many perverse incentives in the system that mean legislators can and do go in other directions (see: the diverging careers of Jim Jordan and Kevin McCarthy), the less time a legislator has in office, the less time they have to become an expert on any issue, much less to master parliamentary procedure.

Right now, the influence of lobbyists and consultants is offset by a legislator's fear of future accountability to voters. Most legislators can't simply go "all in" on their own brand of crazy without risking alienation of crucial supporters.

Term limits will encourage voters to experiment across partisan lines while causing legislators themselves to head toward extremes.

Party loyalty is weak in the United States. Voters are highly partisan, but lawmakers rarely put party before self.

Again, "as if" that's not done already.

It will get worse since there would be no thought of delaying the sinecure as long as possible.

[bvanevery]

They're problematic when you decide the incumbent is good at their job and want them to keep delivering.

I'm not interested in legislators as permanent ongoing institutions with an entourage.  Especially because in the USA, it will be a Democrat or a Republican so ensconced.  I am a Socialist.  Exactly what kind, I cannot quite tell you, although not the Marxist-Leninist Bolshevik tank driving kind.  There are a number of kinds of Socialists, historically over the years, that were / are not that.  The point is that a system that promotes nearly lifelong incumbency, is decidedly against my political interest.  And even if Socialism became competitive in the American political landscape again, I wouldn't change my tune.  Who needs a legislator that routinely stacks up their incumbent advantages?  Doesn't keep them on their toes.

But beyond that, there is a bigger issue: democratic accountability is forward-looking. If, once elected, I know that there is no reward of reelection waiting for me after the end of my term, you lose the biggest lever you have to influence me in the direction you'd prefer I go. More on this below.

Loss of control within a political party, that some young upstart will succeed you, and do a much better job at it, is a motive to perform.  Your concern is really only highest when a politician intends to retire.

It means that being a legislator is like any other career path: experience matters.

I will take the inexperience of Alexandria Occasio-Cortez over any such claim, any day.  Until the day that I have piles of Socialists to choose to put into office, and am spoiled for choice.  In the interim, I will take the ones that actually want to fight, and haven't had as much time to become fat and corrupted.

the less time they have to become an expert on any issue,

Legislators have an extensive staff for a reason.  Some legislators are so old, iit is clearly only their staff that is doing the actual work.  The old fart who's about to die of a brain disease, is just a figurehead for the staff bureaucracy, which promotes a certain political value.

much less to master parliamentary procedure.

Frankly, who cares.  I know idiots get elected, but if you can't figure that stuff out in a few months, there's something basically wrong with your brain.

Right now, the influence of lobbyists and consultants is offset by a legislator's fear of future accountability to voters. Most legislators can't simply go "all in" on their own brand of crazy without risking alienation of crucial supporters.

You sound like a Centrist.  I'm not surprised that a Centrist would want to preserve the structural status quo.

[Trenacker]

I'm not interested in legislators as permanent ongoing institutions with an entourage.  Especially because in the USA, it will be a Democrat or a Republican so ensconced.  I am a Socialist.  Exactly what kind, I cannot quite tell you, although not the Marxist-Leninist Bolshevik tank driving kind.  There are a number of kinds of Socialists, historically over the years, that were / are not that.  The point is that a system that promotes nearly lifelong incumbency, is decidedly against my political interest.  And even if Socialism became competitive in the American political landscape again, I wouldn't change my tune.  Who needs a legislator that routinely stacks up their incumbent advantages?  Doesn't keep them on their toes.

Perhaps we should define something. If you're an advocate for term limits, are we talking one term? Two? Four?

Loss of control within a political party, that some young upstart will succeed you, and do a much better job at it, is a motive to perform.  Your concern is really only highest when a politician intends to retire.

If you can't run again, what's the point of controlling a political party? And how do you enforce party discipline on people who aren't running again? This goes back to the previous question.

I will take the inexperience of Alexandria Occasio-Cortez over any such claim, any day.  Until the day that I have piles of Socialists to choose to put into office, and am spoiled for choice.  In the interim, I will take the ones that actually want to fight, and haven't had as much time to become fat and corrupted.

That's just it: you don't have piles of Socialists to choose from. This knife cuts both ways. Term limits would be expected to produce flip-flopping seats and encourage voters to experiment, perhaps to the benefit of minor parties, but depending upon those limits, you might find that you have no more or better choices than before.

Legislators have an extensive staff for a reason.  Some legislators are so old, iit is clearly only their staff that is doing the actual work.  The old fart who's about to die of a brain disease, is just a figurehead for the staff bureaucracy, which promotes a certain political value.

If the term limits are harsh, the problem may only get worse.

Frankly, who cares.  I know idiots get elected, but if you can't figure that stuff out in a few months, there's something basically wrong with your brain.

Idiots get elected because of structural flaws in the system, but why would we promote "solutions" that only perpetuate those same flaws?

You sound like a Centrist.  I'm not surprised that a Centrist would want to preserve the structural status quo.

I still don't understand why you think there's accountability built into the system you're describing. Please define "term limits" here. Maybe you mean to say that you would like to see politicians serve only a few terms, not many.