Senator Dianne Feinstein's career was filled with firsts, including first woman mayor of San Francisco and one of two of the first women elected to the U.S. Senate from California.
Unironically this would help. The ones enforcing regulatory capture are the ones who have been in their positions the longest.
If the corporations have to constantly introduce themselves to the new politicians, it greatly increases the cost and lowers the lifetime value of the money they’re spending on lobbying.
It might help, but not in isolation, imo. I think there is value to both having new people with new ideas as well as having people with knowledge of how institutions work. If you have entirely new representatives every term, then everyone is learning things anew (from the corporate lobbyists who are their same jobs for every legislative session). If we did away with private money in politics and publicly funded campaigns, then I think the case for strict term limits is stronger
This had been implemented in some places, and it’s only caused corruption to go up and the quality of politicians to go down. Term limits aren’t the silver bullet we need, they’re actually bad.
I’m for term limits but one term is a bit short. Like with any job, it takes some time to really learn the way the system works and to be effective in the position.
Limit every office to one term. Problem solved.
sets the revolving door to max speed
Look y’all, i fixed regulatory capture!
Did you really just call a 90 year old woman who was in the Senate for 31 years a “revolving door”
Unironically this would help. The ones enforcing regulatory capture are the ones who have been in their positions the longest.
If the corporations have to constantly introduce themselves to the new politicians, it greatly increases the cost and lowers the lifetime value of the money they’re spending on lobbying.
It might help, but not in isolation, imo. I think there is value to both having new people with new ideas as well as having people with knowledge of how institutions work. If you have entirely new representatives every term, then everyone is learning things anew (from the corporate lobbyists who are their same jobs for every legislative session). If we did away with private money in politics and publicly funded campaigns, then I think the case for strict term limits is stronger
I mean obviously the best solution is to remove private money entirely. It’s disgustingly biased against the majority of citizens.
A one term limit is silly, for the reason you mention. But 3-4 seems plenty to get a mix of seasoned representatives and new ideas.
This had been implemented in some places, and it’s only caused corruption to go up and the quality of politicians to go down. Term limits aren’t the silver bullet we need, they’re actually bad.
Interesting, you have any examples of where they’ve tried this?
Truthfully? No. It’s something I’ve heard many times but that’s it.
I’m for term limits but one term is a bit short. Like with any job, it takes some time to really learn the way the system works and to be effective in the position.
We limited the presidency to two terms. As a thought experiment, do you think Trump could have beaten Obama?
Nope. I also don’t think trump could have beaten clinton prior to Obama. I think trump was a reaction to Obama.