And the vacation from real blogging continues. I’m not sure until when – I’m still feeling kind of brain dead post-election, and I’m pretty busy catching up on my real work.
Anyway, it seems like I can’t walk down the street lately without someone trying to tell me that we need to do something to get term limits for the City Council. I’m not so sure. Although I’ve repeatedly said that I wouldn’t mind seeing every member of the current Council replaced, I don’t have a theoretical problem with a Councilmember serving 16, 20, or even 32 years, if they were doing a good job. The institutional memory provided by long-term legislators is valuable. I don’t see any benefit to adding even more offices to the politician musical chairs we already have going in California. And who’s to say that term limits would change anything about the current power structure? Councilmembers, knowing they had only 8 years or so, could just spend their time grooming a successor of their choosing.
I’m as disappointed in the recent election results as anyone, but as more people mention it to me, I’ve been trying hard to think seriously about term limits, and I just can’t see what good reason there is for them. “It’s too hard to win” is not a good reason to term out legislators who the people choose to re-elect, whether I agree with the people’s choice or not. The solution to that is to find better challengers and for those challengers to run better campaigns.
So if anyone has an argument for term limits that doesn’t involve not being able to beat one in an election, can you please share it with me? I’m open to persuasion.