TexasCHLforum.com

John Adams was on the spot:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of politicians qualify as "other", to put it nicely. While I agree with you on what a politician should be and how the Founders intended us to serve in the government, the negative aspects of man's nature seem to be too much to overcome. If men were honorable and decent enough to run a good government, we wouldn't really need a government at all.

I'll agree that having term limits makes it easier for decent people who do not want to be career politicians to hold office since they won't have to compete against a well-entrenched incumbent.

The problem I have is what politicians will do once in office. In our current system I think it is safe to say that we are all very angry over the corruption, bribes, and graft that our representatives participate in. Voters, at least institutionally, have leverage over politicians who wish to maintain their privileged positions. If they don't meet our expectations, we can vote them out. Just as the king, to have his reign last his lifetime and his house to carry on after him, must avoid angering the commoners too much, the politician who wants to reign (sadly appropriate) for a long time must also restrain himself to some extent.

If term limits are instituted, once politicians are elected we have no recourse against them. Other than stirring up noise with protests and heated town hall meetings and the like, there is really nothing we can use to influence their actions, no constitution mechanism with which to apply pressure. With no chance of reelection and no reason to satisfy their constituents I'm afraid that the ideologically motivated will do their damage as quickly as they can (like ramming CommieCare down our throats) and the corrupt will immediately whore themselves out to every special interest, union, and business willing to pay them. The corrupt will especially be eager to sell their legislative services to outside interests to that they can secure themselves a nice board position when their terms are complete.

While the negative aspects of politics mentioned in the above paragraph are certainly already prevalent, I don't see term limits making it any better, and could actually make it worse. I still cringe from the last few months of the Bush administration, especially when the financial bubble was popped. Maybe he wouldn't have been so willing to "abandon free market principles in order to save it" if he was up for reelection. Granted, I'll argue that there is precious little resembling "free market principles" in our economy, but that is a different thread entirely.

In summary, since I do not think it is possible to change man's nature, I think the best route to avoid tyranny is to reduce and limit the power of the government in which men exist. Any time the question of governmental power arises I ask myself "what if my opponents, the opponents of liberty, wield this power?", "what then when I'm the minority?" Once the precedence for power is set it is nearly impossible to revoke, therefore if there is government power I would not entrust to my enemy, I must not grant it to my ally.

How would term limits make things better? Why would a politician become more virtuous knowing he will be out of a job in 2-8 years (depending on position)?