Term Limits and Libertarianism

Published on January 29, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

In the past election, I was often asked about my position on term limits. The Libertarian Party, like many groups, is split on the issue, and it's not uncommon to find a wide variety of positions. I, for one, am solidly against them, for a number of reasons.

First, we already have term limits. It's called, the vote. If the people want a candidate out of office, there's a means to remove them, with varying term lengths (except for certain judicial positions...we can revisit that as a separate issue some time). Yes, usually the one with the most money wins, but, truth is, that is all too often an excuse for lazy campaigning. And it's poor sportsmanship to stand on the field and whine when you lost the game. The truth is, losing candidates (including and especially myself) should spend the "offseason" evaluating the numbers and figuring out how to turn the next campaign into a winning one. One of my pet peeves with third parties is that all too often the candidates content themselves with minority status; basically, they don't even TRY to win. And I find that repugnant.

Second, term limits are a form of political force, and that's something that as a Libertarian I do not subscribe to. Term limits give disproportionate power to special interest groups by giving them a means other than the electoral process to oust a candidate they don't like. Wait long enough, and they're gone.

Third, term limits create "lame duck" terms. As many have noted about the President, he doesn't have to cater to the wishes of his constituents, as he's out for reelection anyway. I find it entirely likely that the nature of George W. Bush's second term would be markedly different if he had to face the voters again in '08.

Fourth, term limits are borderline socialistic, rewarding mediocrity and penalizing excellence. While politics certainly have their crooks, many elected officials are in because they knew how to play the game, and a few are in there because they have served their constituents. In my view, it would be absurd to take away the political office of those who have served well, when we already have a means of removing those who haven't.

Term limits are, like so many other "band-aid" solutions, something that appears to be a good idea until you dissect it and peer into its inner core. They provide a temporary solution, and a rather shoddy one, to a permanent problem. We are better off with the system we currently have even with its imperfections.

Comments

bakerstreet

on Jan 29, 2007

I have to disagree with you on term limits. The problem is that the political process has become so stagnant that the vast majority of congressmen run unopposed. The reason for this isn't necessarily because the people like them all that much, rather because it costs too much money to run, and the districts are gerrymandered to death.

Most of your arguments are already defeated by the process itself, unfortunately, positive though they may be. Redistricting subverts the process you describe. You experience the drag on the process yourself, and you can see how this isn't the open, Libertarian system by anyone's definition. The process is already DESIGNED to favor the incumbant.

In that light, don't you think it is beneficial to stop this 40 year dynasty situation people have in some places? It isn't like they wouldn't vote for someone else, in reality they rarely even get anyone else to vote for. Maybe term limits aren't the answer, but if they aren't then something needs to be done to the rest of the system.

bakerstreet

on Jan 29, 2007

I guess what I am saying is that unless you think the system now as it is is as good as we can do, or we have to do something. Most everything we can do will be seen as the kind of subversion you are describing, but if we end up with a more representative government, that benefits everyone.

Dr Guy

on Jan 29, 2007

I tend to side with Baker on this. And if we look at the founders real intent, they wanted a bunch of citizen legistlators, not a permanent new class of politicians. But then most of the original intent has already been subverted so I guess that is a moot point.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 29, 2007

Interesting position, Baker, in light of the position you usually take of letting the PEOPLE decide. I believe we were intended to have a civilian legislature as well, but I think the solution to the problem is to vote the bums out of office, not to LEGISLATE them out of office. Incidentally, the process for passing such legislation is why it does not in reality stand a prayer of being made law in a large number of states.

Personally, I want a seat on the Texas legislature, but I don't want it THAT way. I want to beat my opponent in an open, honest election. It's doable, but it will require a lot of pavement pounding on my part. But if I win, I will have won because I worked for the office, not because I gained it by default.

bakerstreet

on Jan 29, 2007

Yes, but for that to happen the people have to have an opportunity to decide. If they aren't given the choice in the primaries, they don't have anything to decide about. Do you really think no one wants to be in the government?

Of course not. Lots of people like you would like to serve their government. They don't because the system is skewed hard to prevent them. The parties have spent a lot of time making laws to make sure that they vet out who runs and doesn't run.

They've already legislated YOU out of office, Gid. Period. They've gerrymandered your district and buried you in red tape, while slapping each other on the back and laughing. You can say you want to beat them fair and square, but until the process is fair and square that won't be possible.

It's kind of silly to take a Libertarian stance on something that the government is in 100% control of, isn't it? I mean, you can't really take government influence out of the election process, since obviously they legislate every little detail of it themselves. If the legislators pass term limits, that would be the people deciding, wouldn't it?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!