Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Conservative columnist George F. Will was one of the first columnists to join the Washington Post Writers group, and began writing for Newsweek two...
Read more about George F. Will.
Conservative columnist George F. Will was one of the first columnists to join the Washington Post Writers group, and began writing for Newsweek two...
Read more about George F. Will.
Term Limits Aren't Appropriate in "Tough Times"?
George F. Will
WASHINGTON -- Unimpressed by Charles de Gaulle's droll observation
that the graveyards are full of indispensable men, Michael Bloomberg,
New York City's 108th mayor, has decided that he is indispensable. So
the law limiting mayors to two terms must be revised to allow three
terms.
"It's not that anyone is indispensable," said Bloomberg when announcing that the term-limits law, which was enacted by referendum and then reaffirmed by a second referendum, is an intolerable impediment to his continuing as mayor for another four years in what he calls "tough times." He was referring to Wall Street's troubles, which will shrink the city government's revenues. But the times were always in some ways tough for each of Bloomberg's 107 predecessors.
Advocates of term limits argue neither that political talent is irrelevant nor that it is ubiquitous. Rather, they argue that talent is not so scarce that the benefits of rotation in office must be sacrificed in order to prolong indefinitely a talented person's tenure in office. And they argue that the benefits of churning the talent pool exceed the costs of limiting tenures.
Bloomberg's supporters say term limits are undemocratic -- but also that the City Council should alter the limits (which apply to council members) by statute rather than submit the change to a public referendum. To the charge that term limits are undemocratic, the answer, in Palinspeak, is, "You betcha." That is, they are as undemocratic as, say, the First Amendment, which begins with the most lovely five words in the English language -- "Congress shall make no law." The amendment lists some things that the people's elected representatives cannot do even if the people want them done, such as abridge freedom of speech, or legislate the establishment of religion.
Last month, in a front-page story headlined "Across Country, New Challenges to Term Limits," The New York Times, which dislikes term limits as heartily as it likes Bloomberg, reported, without even a soupcon of irony, this:
"A decade after communities around the country adopted term limits to force entrenched politicians from office, at least two dozen local governments are suffering from a case of buyer's remorse, with legislative bodies from New York City to Tacoma, Wash., trying to overturn or tweak the laws."
Good grief. These legislative bodies, including state legislatures, are largely filled with politicians eager to become entrenched. And these bodies never did "buy" term limits. Limits were imposed on them.
The Times reported gravely that term limits force legislators "to gravitate toward small-bore projects that can be done quickly, rather than anything visionary that would take years to achieve." Disregard the dubious idea that "visionary" legislatures are desirable, and disregard the fact that term limits always allow legislators to serve for "years" -- usually at least six and often eight or more. But consider the Times' supposedly alarming example of Tacoma Councilwoman Connie Ladenburg.
Now in her second four-year term, she advocates something that the Times presumably considers visionary and not a bit small-bore -- a $2 million pedestrian and bike trail. Ladenburg lamented to the Times that she thinks "this is crazy" because, "If I go away, and it's not completed, what will happen?" Well, either the trail will be completed or it won't. Presumably, if the good people of Tacoma want it, it will be, in which case she will not have been indispensable, which will also be true if they do not want it completed.
The Times dutifully reported that 37 governors, 15 state legislatures and nine of the 10 most populous cities have term limits, which remain popular with the people who imposed them: "Recent ballot initiatives to alter them, including one in California in February, have failed."
Two amusing arguments against term limits are that political novices are too susceptible to the wiles of lobbyists, and that term-limited legislators, worrying too much about their next jobs and too little about their current ones, are constantly in campaign mode, thinking of the next election rather than the next generation. The idea that when term limits are absent, these difficulties are absent is refuted by one word: Congress.
"Make no mistake about it," said Bloomberg when announcing his intention to revise the law without seeking the permission of the public that enacted it, "I still think term limits are a good thing." Just not for him, not now, in these "tough times." Yet again, the political class' reaction to term limits is a powerful, indeed sufficient argument for them.
========
George Will's e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com
2008, Washington Post Writers Group
This news arrived on: 10/12/2008
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
10-20-2008 14:21
msattitude69 wrote:
Everyone is for term limits until their term is about to be limited. The whole point to a term limits is to prevent the same few from running the government forever.
10-16-2008 19:37
Texas Katie wrote:
to Sunshine49
Following is a copy of page 8 of 263 of the Branchflower Report to the Legislative Council - State of Alaska October 10, 2008, Vol. One-Public Record:
II Findings
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
"The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
Now, Sunshine49, tell us why you believe that Sarah was not found guilty of Abuse of Power???
II Findings
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
"The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
Now, Sunshine49, tell us why you believe that Sarah was not found guilty of Abuse of Power???
10-15-2008 08:56
Marek wrote:
How about a president for life?
The Obama game to become dictator is just taking off. As usual it starts slow, testing ground by removing term limits for city officials then state governors and soon after on the president. Such a coup could be done in four to eight years. During that time with willing mass disinformation propaganda media on his side and appropriate pro Obama rullings from the courts and with democratic majority in Congress The Constitution may be amended. Some things can be removed, like second amendment and some things added, like for instance granting lifetime presidency to mister Obama. And voila! We all are happy in newly minted workers paradise and system of social justice. Goodbye USA and welcome to Goolag Archipelago. Many of you will say thing like this is not possible, no way, this is America and Obama is a democrat and he would not do this anyway. ARE YOU WILLING TO BET?
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
|
View George Will ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
Body Mass
