Can’t say you’ve completely convinced me, but I find your arguments interesting and thought-provoking to say the least. In my view, term limits are a means of protecting the people from themselves and — to a lesser extent — a means of combatting gerontocracy. I think it would be much easier to pass policies like Medicare-For-All in a Congress where you don’t have to Weekend At Bernie’s anyone at all. Regardless, great piece!
I've long believed that if people, especially young people, were more engaged in politics, including during primaries, gerontocracy would not be best addressed by term limits. And if the citizenry were invested and engaged in protecting republican government, there also would be no need to "[protect] the people from themselves" through term limits. When Grant was perceived as seeking a third term, the House and state legislatures adopted a position of staunch opposition.
Our issues today largely arise from the fact that two of the three branches of government seem absolutely unwilling to protect their own Constitutional prerogatives from executive encroachment - a lack of civil virtue that is not alleviated by term limits.
Can’t say I disagree. However, can we not implement term limits in the meantime while we attempt the longer-term initiative of improving our civil society?
This piece in particular includes an argument that term limits are an intentionally anti-democratic measure. See, again, the 22nd Amendment being adopted by Republicans as a mostly partisan rallying cry during FDR's presidency. Or the inability of Obama to be re-elected in 2016 despite an approval rating in the high 50's.
In general I just don't agree that term limits' benefits generally outweigh their drawbacks. But I also won't be supporting Republicans' current efforts, serious or not, to repeal or modify the 22nd Amendment. This post was intended as more of a thought exercise and justification for harping that virtù really matters than a casus belli for a campaign against term limits.
Can’t say you’ve completely convinced me, but I find your arguments interesting and thought-provoking to say the least. In my view, term limits are a means of protecting the people from themselves and — to a lesser extent — a means of combatting gerontocracy. I think it would be much easier to pass policies like Medicare-For-All in a Congress where you don’t have to Weekend At Bernie’s anyone at all. Regardless, great piece!
I've long believed that if people, especially young people, were more engaged in politics, including during primaries, gerontocracy would not be best addressed by term limits. And if the citizenry were invested and engaged in protecting republican government, there also would be no need to "[protect] the people from themselves" through term limits. When Grant was perceived as seeking a third term, the House and state legislatures adopted a position of staunch opposition.
Our issues today largely arise from the fact that two of the three branches of government seem absolutely unwilling to protect their own Constitutional prerogatives from executive encroachment - a lack of civil virtue that is not alleviated by term limits.
Can’t say I disagree. However, can we not implement term limits in the meantime while we attempt the longer-term initiative of improving our civil society?
This piece in particular includes an argument that term limits are an intentionally anti-democratic measure. See, again, the 22nd Amendment being adopted by Republicans as a mostly partisan rallying cry during FDR's presidency. Or the inability of Obama to be re-elected in 2016 despite an approval rating in the high 50's.
In general I just don't agree that term limits' benefits generally outweigh their drawbacks. But I also won't be supporting Republicans' current efforts, serious or not, to repeal or modify the 22nd Amendment. This post was intended as more of a thought exercise and justification for harping that virtù really matters than a casus belli for a campaign against term limits.