Progressives are outraged as Pelosi reportedly undermines AOC's bid for top Dem spot on key committee. Is Pelosi's interference justified or does it hinder progress? Will AOC's push for reforms be stifled? The battle for power within the Democratic Party intensifies. #PelosiVsAOC
There are many things that would be a good change. In a vacuum, term limits would absolutely be one of them. Like excluding family members from the presidency. You can argue against it, but you’re wrong.
The problem is we don’t live in a vacuum. Humans and organizations are going to react, and we know how they’re going to react because we’ve studied it. Politicians survive on their personal name brand. Term limits obliterate that. If you want to run for Congress you’ll have to submit an application to a major party or be an independently wealthy person, preferably with some kind of family dynasty people recognize.
Once the politicians are completely dependent on party that moves all decision making to the party. That means cookie cutter bills in every state and decisions made in smoke filled rooms by people whose name you’ve never heard. Yeah that happens to some extent now, but with professional politicians that have their own constituency they have the independence to say no. If the employee politician under the term limit system says no they don’t get their next term, they certainly don’t get a crack at higher office, and they don’t get their soft landing after their terms are up.
Long term it gets even worse. Anyone with enough money can play this game, including billionaires like Elon Musk. Are you excited for Elon’s personal legislator? No? Then don’t do term limits.
Anyone with enough money has been playing the game for roughly 250 years. Term limits isn’t a fix by itself, and with other countries purchasing presidents, maybe not the first reform, but it’s on the list, no?
Sure they have, I said as much in my post. But it’s a lot less effective if the guy you gave a massive donation to can now raise money on his own name and get himself re-elected. He’s free to tell you no, no matter how much money you gave his campaign.
There are many things that would be a good change. In a vacuum, term limits would absolutely be one of them. Like excluding family members from the presidency. You can argue against it, but you’re wrong.
The problem is we don’t live in a vacuum. Humans and organizations are going to react, and we know how they’re going to react because we’ve studied it. Politicians survive on their personal name brand. Term limits obliterate that. If you want to run for Congress you’ll have to submit an application to a major party or be an independently wealthy person, preferably with some kind of family dynasty people recognize.
Once the politicians are completely dependent on party that moves all decision making to the party. That means cookie cutter bills in every state and decisions made in smoke filled rooms by people whose name you’ve never heard. Yeah that happens to some extent now, but with professional politicians that have their own constituency they have the independence to say no. If the employee politician under the term limit system says no they don’t get their next term, they certainly don’t get a crack at higher office, and they don’t get their soft landing after their terms are up.
Long term it gets even worse. Anyone with enough money can play this game, including billionaires like Elon Musk. Are you excited for Elon’s personal legislator? No? Then don’t do term limits.
Anyone with enough money has been playing the game for roughly 250 years. Term limits isn’t a fix by itself, and with other countries purchasing presidents, maybe not the first reform, but it’s on the list, no?
Sure they have, I said as much in my post. But it’s a lot less effective if the guy you gave a massive donation to can now raise money on his own name and get himself re-elected. He’s free to tell you no, no matter how much money you gave his campaign.
That entire calculus changes with term limits.