The Times editorial board, composed of sensible, rational people, is not a fan of term limits:
Term limits are undeniably seductive. They seem to promise relief from mediocre, self-perpetuating incumbents and from gridlocked legislatures in places like Albany. They also diminish democracy, arbitrarily deny choice, reduce accountability and squander experience.
I agree with all of that. Imagine if we had term limits in any other part of life. "I'm sorry, Mrs. Smith, but you've had Dr. Jones as your personal physician for 10 years, so you're at your end of your term limits with him as you doctor. It's too bad that you've developed a rapport, he's seen you and your family through many diseases and such, but we have term limits on how long you can have one doctor."
Or how about this? "I'm sorry, Mr. Jordan, you've been playing for the Chicago Bulls for 6 years, which is the maximum allowed under term limits for basketball players, so you've got to be traded. I realize that you enjoy playing under Phil Jackson and with Scottie Pippen, but that's the law."
Apart from the pragmatic issues of experience, etc., my primary issue with term limits is one of principle. Term limits restrict my freedom. The Constitution places three restrictions on who can serve in various offices: age, residency, and citizenship. I realize that there is an Amendment which places limits on how long Presidents can serve. Since it's an Amendment, there's nothing I can do about it. But I still find it objectionable. If I want to vote for the same person for 30 years in a row, that should be my right as an American. The right to vote for my candidate of choice is my sacred right as an American. So that's my primary objection to term limits: they are unAmerican.
No comments:
Post a Comment