Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nephythys
Alex- can you explain this more?
|
Politics is not an easy game to play (as much as we'd like it to be; but it is made difficult by the fact that we want politicians to ignore special interests except our own) and it takes a lot of time and energy to build the networks and power that allow you to get things done.
With term limits, the politician himself is not really able to develop that power (and what is the point of another person putting a lot of capital into supporting a person who will just be gone in a few years anyway?) and they have to rely on a party to provide it. Instead it is better to scratch the back of the party and let the party scratch back than to scratch the back of the politician and have nobody scratching back in a couple years (and to say that all decisions in politics should be altruistic is the same as saying dark chocolate should fall from the sky on Sundays as a sign of benevolence from our lord savior).
Also, term limits are an embodiment of the idea that there is no such thing as "the best person for the job." That anybody can do it and the most important thing is that as many people as possible cycle through. If Person A really is the most effective person for whatever people want "a senator" to be, why should they be forced to replace him with inferior Person B after a few years? And if you're Person A and want to be involved in getting things done, which is better to be the senator or to be the person at the party who gets to pick and control senators?
Now, there nothing wrong with moving all power to the party instead of the person (most representative democracies work under this method and they generally work fine) but it isn't the way we're set up so if we're going to do it we should do it explicitly and rewrite the constitution.