Maybe Americans , by nature , are always willing to debate in the political spectrum ! Maybe that is never going to change , maybe we don't want ANTHING TO CHANGE . Is it the differences that we love so much , is it the need for debate , for such divisive dialog ? Is it " the Fight " tha feeds our collective egos ?
NOTHING in America , no matter how dear the solutions are or could ever be to us , Is ever going to change until we bring term limits to political offices ! Face it . That is the final solution to almost all of America's political problems !
I certaily agree that we should have term limits. The founders of this country never anticipated that we would have an army of career politicians. Instead, they wanted citizens that would take a bit of time off from their normal life and contribute to the people their time and talents for a short timw.
"As a lobbyist, I was completely against term limits, and I know a lot of people are against term limits, and I was one of the leaders, because why? As a lobbyist, once you buy a congressional office, you don't have to re-buy that office in six years, right?" Jack Abramoff
The language and content say it all. Other parts of the trifecta should be publicly financed campaigns to keep the money out of elections and lobby reform to eliminate special interest manipulating the vote.
You are asking for another law as a power to do something American voters can already do. We can "term limit" politicians ourselves... with our vote.
Unfortunately, I think the voter apathy that many blame is real. So if we won't do what we are easily able to do now, (vote as an individual), why do you think that will suddenly change and we will pay attention and vote good guys into the seats opened by term limits?
I think the most likely outcome of established term limits would just be more aggressive two-term corrupt politicians instead of "carreer-er" corrupt politicians.
Good point - will we ever pick good leaders. No guarantee at all, of course, and our current record is absolutely abysmal at doing it.
And I questioned somewhere else if shorter term politicians will just be more active in what they do.
I wouldn't look at it as another law to do what the voters are apathetic to accomplish as they have already done it with the presidency. The idea of a turnover of power and ideas was written into the Constitution with two, four, six and lifetime terms to provide an overlap and provide continuity and opportunity for legislators to accomplish their goals. Unfortunately the corruptive nature that is in all forms of government, money, has wiggled its way into the scene by providing the means for many to make this a lifetime career thus defeating the nature of the turnover of members and new ideas which the Constitution intended.
Perhaps with a time limit on their participation it will also provide a renewed expediency to get the things they were voted there to get done. Believe me I know there always will be those whose only purpose is to game the system and get done what they have on their own agenda. That is why we have recurring elections to weed them out. Whatever can be done in this direction will have to be an improvement.
Term limits probably would help. But I do feel a little two-faced supporting the concept. It seems hard to consider it other than being just one more thing we want the government to do for us - when we could, and should be doing it for ourselves.
I agree with your historical rationalization. I agree it would be beneficial. I agree we need to do it. But.. it is kinda tough ranting about Nanny state issues when I think term limit legislation is in the same herd Just a different color.
We can do it. We won't do it. Let's get government to do it for us.
I try not to look at the government as a separate entity from the people. After all it is made up from our friends and neighbors. I agree it sometimes has a mind of its' own and seems to act for its' own gratification. But we are the ones who create it, support it and tear it down to serve us. As long as we believe that you can't fight city hall we will get whatever the people who do remain involved want. If you put 100 people in a room and ask them a simple question you will get a few different answers but if you ask them why they had that answer the number explodes as all have a different perspective based on their own personalities and experiences. Some will even refuse to answer why at all. There seems to be nothing constructive about that. Besides the money that would influence the outcome, a legacy is easily established in the void of a turnover of personnel. The vote has proven daunting for many and so frustrating that many don't even participate. How would you otherwise motivate the electorate to make a change if not with a change in choices if not through term limits?
You try not to look at the government as a separate entity? Hmm... that isn't the perception I have gotten from your forum postings.
To the 100 people point - sounds right to me.
Why do you feel the vote is so daunting or frustrating for many voters? Registering is easy and opportunities are plentiful.
As for the actual voting, at least for me, it is a simple drive to the polls and, depending on the line, a 10 or 15 minute process.
Even if it did take a little work to actually vote, isn't it worth it? I suspect there are damn few folks that have to make a monumental effort to do it. Isn't voting in the same personal responsibility arena that so many folks go to to complain about Nanny State issues?
Unfortunately I think term limit legislation is required, but only because voters are too lazy to do it themselves. Shame on us. (well, not me, I do vote diligently and intelligently - meaning I at least consider more than name recognition or party)
So yes, I do support legislated term limits. But I do it with my hand over my mouth so you can't see which side I am speaking out of.
ps. Do you really think more choices will motivate the previously unmotivated? Have you considered how many choices they usually have in the primaries - before voters whittle the field down to actual nominees?
Would it help to make the voting process much harder? Would it keep out the people that won't make the effort to understand the nominees and problems we face?
Just thinking out loud...
At first glance I can see how you get the perception I hold government as a separate entity. My reference to it is that it is people who run it and people who corrupt it. These people good or bad should be held accountable through the ballot box and or the dismissal process afforded us to rid us of them if necessary.
The vote is frustrating because the information by the media is either misleading, biased or just an outright lie in some cases. The daunting of it refers to the gerrymandering and repositioning of polling places. In my district I have lived at the same address for over thirty years. I have been sent changes in the polling place several times at four different schools resulting in my having to go to a different place even on the day when I show up to vote. I have seen others have the same experience and just say screw it and leave without voting.
I don't think I would say more choices is the impetus for the movement to term limits. It is about a new choice that intercedes the big money purchase of the candidate I am advocating.
I agree that the American electorate are very lazy when only 30% to 40% turn out for the vote. Maybe term limits is a way to compensate for the lack of participation.
I also advocate that the primaries be open to all parties including independents. The whittling down process may make it a more competitive field worthwhile of voting. Knowing that the opposition can defeat the candidate of your choice may inspire the lazy to get out and vote as well.
I almost always tend to blame the lack of having REAL American's as representing us in office , as the biggest political problem we have . The fact that politics becomes a "career " IS the problem , One or two ...... terms for a senator or congressman ? It would keep plastic suits, plastic men [women ] from leading us .
I truly believe that a housewife , a bartender , a carpenter or a doctor , for two , three or four years in office would serve ALL our needs far better than that which we allow now . If the office was not allowed to become a career job - the negative corporate influences wouldn't Own America the way that it does today .
The military industrial complex ,mass organized labor , foreign financial influences , would be the first to LOSE legislative influence , imagine what that alone would accomplish in America.
One possible problem I see with term limits is having a Legislature that doesn't know the law or the mechanics of writing a legislation. We could have a situation where the elected people are totally dependent on professional staffers. The result could be to make the Executive branch all powerful and the Legislature useless.
I would not worry about the laws being understood as Congress is made up of predominately lawyers and they are the problem. They know how to write around a law better than we can imagine. Everything can be put to a test with the Supreme Court as to whether it is legal or not so I don't think not knowing the law is a problem. The problem is that they only know too well the law and its' loopholes. They all must go for our freedom to be realized.
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts." Abraham Lincoln
I think a big problem with term limits is that power grows with time in office, and the politician is more able to "bring home the bacon" to their constituents. More and more pork, benefiting their state/county/city at the expense of someone else.
And the people like that - even known crooks get re-elected, partially because they bring all that free money home to the voters. That and the fact that old and familiar is comfortable. People will vote on nothing more than name recognition no matter how tenuous that recognition is.
Term limits equal the playing field and everyone knows that their time is limited so they had better do a good job or else.
Career politicians don't worry since they have had time to build influence and wealth.
Well, either that or "make hay while the sun shines". Never thought of it that way, but could term limits exacerbate the very problems we're trying to solve?
I don't think so , because of shorter terms we'd get better people in general instead of career minded crooks , also a more mainstream of American !
I agree, and absolutely support term limits. But I also see it as a valid concern; that the party powerhouses, whether in congress or out, will still control elections. Requiring their puppets to act quicker but maintain the same "business as usual". And thereby putting us all in a deeper cesspool than we were before.
Yes , but we have to figure out a way to get the usual career-ers [ new word ] out of office . I believe that they are our greatest enemy . Is it not the reason behind all of the gridlock that hinders productivity in politics ? I just think it would benefit America greatly to get real , down to earth , laymen and women ,even more minorities , into these offices ?
Umm...for the most part I don't want "productivity" out of politicians. We already have too many laws, and that's all they're good for; making laws.
Yes, real, down to earth men and women that understand what it means to be an American. Few if any of our current crop of leaders does; they just understand what it means to have power over other's lives.
By the word productivity , I mean actually doing the job that we hired them for . economize , lead , be vigilant of the WORKING political process . Creating law ALL all done , optimizing the political system for the betterment of the American people is the job .
"Umm...for the most part I don't want "productivity" out of politicians. We already have too many laws, and that's all they're good for; making laws."
I can agree with this for the current crop of imbeciles on the hill. Perhaps if we had some leadership instead of political nonsense it might be a little more palatable.
This is it exactly , the entire reasoning behind all that ails America !
We also have to get the McCutcheon decision repealed and SOON , that is the supreme court saying that corporate America equals a vote , or that their money actually is legally influential in political office buying !
by Josak 5 years ago
Some thoughts:No campaign contributions allowed all campaigns are funded by a tiny flat tax every party receives a given amount to publicize their views so long as they can get say 50 000 party members. Yearly full IRS audit for all major elected officials.A limit on legal fees for any court case...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
Do you think Trump will push for Term Limits to shake up Congress?There are many members of Congress who have lived most of their adult lives as elected members of Congress - clearly in defiance to what the founders intended a representative government to be. Are you in support of limiting...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
Donald Trump just announced he will pass Term Limits? Will this help him win?At a rally today Trump spoke about a Constitutional Amendment on Term Limits for Congress. This should be supported across the asile - thoughts?
by rhamson 2 years ago
In an effort to start a conversation towards a more productive change in the politics and direction of the country does it not make sense at this time that these three areas are at the crux of the failure of this country? Term limits were induced after FDR's reign as President because the people...
by Scott S Bateman 4 years ago
I don't feel sorry for all of them, but many of them are victims of ignorant, self-centered voters and greedy, self-centered interest groups. Voters and interest groups can be quite vicious if they don't get their way.Politicans are human. Some are good and some are bad. What I have...
by JON EWALL 8 years ago
Would placing term limits on Congressman and Senators in Congress solve the problems in Washington?The President has term limits so why shouldn't Congress have term limits.Well, the old saying is '' if you don't like the candidate, vote him/her out of office''. That was ok years ago,...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|