I've never favored term limits. I voted against term limits in California whenever that was on the ballot—1996, I guess. Any time anyone calls for term limits nationally, I say: "Look at California." Term limits empower the permanent bureaucracy. And, as you point out here, the same bad apples cycle through different offices anyway. Also—this is one nobody loves to hear—term limits let voters off the hook.
Politics isn't easy. Democrats learned decades ago how to "game" term limits. They cultivate a deep bench of candidates. They run for—and win!—nonpartisan offices, such as city council and school board seats. Water policy is boring as hell, but elected water boards are very powerful. I've met countless Republican activists who make these quixotic runs for state and even federal office and yet the thought of running for local office is anathema. Very few will entertain the idea. Those who do—and who run successfully—have ended up in the state legislature and, in a couple of cases, Congress. But that's retail politics and ain't nobody got time for that.
I appreciate your comment about Democrats gaming term limits.
To look at the obverse, I've noticed for decades that Republicans have had a long game of taking over state legislatures which has given them incredible power now.
Maybe each party has its own gaming strategy. That doesn't mean one of them is any more a good guy than the other. A pox on both their houses. It's like a uniparty now anyway.
Good point. Like our host here, I write from California, a one-party state. Republicans here are of zero significance. They're easy not to think about here or elsewhere.
Then again power is returning to the states and localities.
There was nothing in DC intrinsically worth having except legitimacy- and they have destroyed legitimacy.
We can quite take them piecemeal, we can do that.
DC is not Rome, London, Paris or Moscow. Nothing there but what the Republic built.
Just legitimacy and they squandered it.
Take the rest, let our natural arrangements of Federation return, not without strife, but its quite doable. Electing a President, Congress, Senate doesn’t change anything (they can’t, sunk costs fatalism) but we can take the states.
Dobbs and our natural drift back to Federation as opposed to this bloated centralized absurdity offer great opportunities...
...for Subsidiarity to saw off the rungs higher on the ladder- meaning states can undermine up to Federal instead being 💩 on from above. It won’t be so much fun at the top tossing chamberpots 💩 down on the peasants when they saw away what your standing on. Why just punch up when they’re so precariously balanced, why bother climbing up if its hopeless? Just undermine the usurpers above us. Local can also undermine and even defy state capitols - the election of the right sheriff is enough.
Another way of saying its the underdogs prerogative to snap at the testicles.
We don’t need DC, and we can’t afford them either.
But at least in my locality we’re no fonder of the state government. State government is all for local control as long as the granularity stops at the state legislature level. They’re forever imposing unwieldy, inappropriate, and unrealistic dictates on small rural towns.
Then charge your local politicians and boards with sawing out the rungs on the ladder below. Let all the little John Marshall's make their decisions , now lets see them enforce it - be in ah 'well regulated' groups to stand against same.
^Sheriffs are most useful in this regard, in my part of NY State [yes, that NY state] the writ of gun control was directly refused when Cuomo passed the SAFE Act, indeed this entire part of the state west of Binghamton is about as safe as English tax collectors in the Scottish highlands of the past [it helps that these are the descendants of the very border highlanders here] , the writ goes no farther than the sword and the swords are ours. Hochul has to be content like Cuomo and Bloomberg before her with petty gestures and thievery ... and threatening the gun dealers license [on whom the ACT is enforced, economic and competent in truth].
Since your state is GOP the National Dems will not be instantly inclined to fly to the aid of the State govt that overreaches, this is ideal. Ideal.
You want them you see to see and feel alone, friendless, impotent ....
...you want the actual power in the center in DC placed on the horns of a dilemma:
>help the enemy GOP and so help a State Capitol , their actual constituted rivals?
By precedent empowering State governments again?
XOR
> let the commons taste power, let the rantings of the statist left be seen flailing?
Power is like a Carnivore tasting its first kill's blood - they want MORE.
The Dilemma: Let the cause of Progress fail before the already aroused commons OR by directing scarce National Resources at the center [and they are quite scarce for DC] help a natural indeed constituted rival?
The enemy on the horns of a dilemma and to we locals either horn is worth a battle.
For you see my dear Sir Tardigrade - this is FEUDALISM in conflict, not the Communists vs the Fascists ...no. This is simple FEUDALISM.
You sure about that? Sir Humphrey represented the deep state, the bureaucracy. The Minister represented the flaky politicians grasping for votes, sometimes trying to do the right thing yet easily frightened. I’m not sure either one was the good guy and I think that was the point of the show, much as we loved the individual characters. Even Bernard, the idealist with a conscience, was easily swayed by Humphrey’s arguments.
Sir Humphrey and Yes Minister/ Yes PM should be required in Civics , IR, every citizen must see: because the commons had no idea and only dimly begin to accept they’ve been had even now. Yes we must teach Sir Humphrey to the world- just as we teach firemen about flammables, just as we teach soldiers about the opponent, indeed just as we teach young athletes how to block or pass.
Yes I’m sure about that.
Of course they must know the truth to vote or have a concept of politics. They need to know yes at present their vote DOESN’T count .
Would you keep deceiving the commons? I think you wouldn’t.
At the Federal level we’re electing TV actors who have no power over the actual government of 3 millions and 1-2X as many contractors.
So its all Carnies anyway (TV and the media are full of people who would have been Carnival performers a century ago).
Who knows at the State level.
The real Gerontocracy is the Civil Service, where the multiple offices are held at once to get 2-3 paychecks. The elected are not allowed by law and rules to touch our pure and virtuous civil service with their grubby politics, but that negated the vote. Life is hard choices, eh?
I knew somebody who was employed full time as a state bureaucrat AND a full time academic at a state university. So they had two well paying, full time state jobs.
1.Sheila Kuehl was one of the original Mickey Mouse Mousketeers (i am sure Chris knows this!).
2. We already have term limits, it is called elections. The only problem is that the same assholes keep voting for the same assholes.
3. A corollary is that one cannot be mad at, say, Gavin Newsome, for doing stupid, destructive things and being a petty condescending asshole because he is only doing what his voters told him to do. But you can be very angry at those people stupid enough to vote for him.
It’s always been that way. Sam Rayburn was Speaker of the House forever. Strom Thurman served forever as well. Once these guys figure out the game they’ve got a job for life.
i think if more people saw politicians like Kuehl helping themselves from the civic service buffet, it might be a lot more apparent that a lot of them can’t seem to do anything else (i mean, isn’t that why Fetterman wants in?).
I remember reading a science fiction story, about sixty years ago, that explored exactly that premise - "election trial by combat". My never perfect memory suggests the protagonist gave up at about age 60 because he was "too old"! Maybe we SHOULD implement that process.
You're right, of course, although Boomers always have great voter turnout, and I'll bet they don't think 75 or 80 is old. They also think (if my own circle of Boomers is indicative of the group) that it is *vital* to keep voting for the incumbent of their own party because *otherwise the other party will control the House!!!*
The real reason for my comment, though, is that I hadn't thought about that game for decades. Man, I loved it. Leaping from the dresser to the bed. Streeeeetching from the arm of one couch to the arm of the other one. Thank you for bringing it up.
I remember playing that game as a kid in my cousin's basement 50 years ago. We invented it, as I'm sure kids have been doing for millennia. It must be universal since no one taught it to us.
IF the incumbent is doing a good job representing your state, by all means vote them in again. IF, however, that incumbent decides they don't need to represent your state, vote them out. It works. If you don't believe it, ask Richard Lugar.
Mind you beware; Covid Fascism may have discredited the present sinecuristas but in terms of power, Politics as Profession probably got a big boost. They have tasted Power and will want more.
Sheila Kuehl is an interesting case. She graduated from Harvard Law School, for whatever that's worth. I don't know if "idiot" is the right term for her. I don't know that intelligence or the lack of it is important when it comes to being addicted to government jobs. Plenty of smart people are addicted to that sort of job. It's kind of amazing. Some of them complain about the conditions they work in, their failure to be promoted and the "idiots" they have for colleagues. But they cannot bring themselves to leave government and work in the real economy.
If anything, Harvard Law School is a further argument against her intelligence. For evidence that the intelligence of Ivy League alumni is vastly overstated, I present: the United States of America.
My contention is that the desire to hold elected office has become the purview of the narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths among us. There may once have been discernable differences between political parties, and candidates; but that seems to no longer be the case. Once elected, they seem to become, in their own minds at least, members of the ruling class. And we keep electing them!
In politics the worst rises to the top. It's the opposite of the free market. I'm more ways than one. Which is not surprising considering politicians pull the levers of the state. The state is the monopoly of violence. The one ring ring to rule them all.
When I was 9 or 10, we visited an uncle who tended the sewage treatment plant in a small town. My father thought it would be 'educational' for my sisters and I to tour that somewhat malodorous facility. I remember commenting on the lumps floating on one of the ponds. My uncle observed that shit always rises to the top. To which my Dad replied, "Just like government". Nothing has changed in nearly 70 years.
narcissists with martyr complexes. which im sure harvard helped mold. “you educated elite better-than superior person must now go into the world with your ivy education and help make the lives of these poor teeming deplorable flyovers better with your infallible genius! after all, why else would you get into harvard?”
Yeah, yeah, that does ring true. We keep electing them. And once elected, not only do they form the ruling class, they plug right into the big money forces that run the country behind the scenes.
these elite colleges and their graduates are subject to political biases. there are certain realities that Ivy Leaguers just won't let themselves see plainly because they've already fully dedicated their intelligence to the service of an ideology or political party. everything they see comes through that lens, which obscures or distorts. and the more intelligent a person is, the more facts they can marshal in a moment, the more complicated the theories they can understand, the more completely and easily they can rationalize their own idiotic perspective on reality.
If all you care about is money and power, and you don’t mind kissing ass and sucking up then politics is the career for you. And there are plenty of smart people doing it. Smart isn’t what we’re talking about here. Borderline sociopath is what we’re talking about.
Ha. Yeah. I used to know someone who worked at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab. When you asked him "How many people work at JPL?" he'd answer "About a third."
You know, it’s not hard to fix this. But of course there is no will to do it. All we have to do is set firm term and income limits. It’s a can of worms of course, because they’re so effing clever at gaming the system. Look at Joe Biden as a sterling example. What’s he worth now, 600 million? A man who has been in politics since the age of 28? Why doesn’t this upset anybody on the left? Instead they get their panties in a wad over Trump who actually earned his money.
And these people in their 80s still trying to get elected tells you more about their lust for power and influence than anything else. It’s sickening. I can’t stand them, any of them. And that’s where we are here in America. Most of us can’t stand any of them. They may be the richest and the most powerful but they’re also the most hated.
It’s not the age of the elected officials that is offensive; it’s the ones hanging around for decades just milking their position and taking their constituency for granted. Americans are lazy to the extent that up until recently most of us were not particularly active in politics. Look where that got us. One “benefit” of the insane clown posse destroying life as we know it is that it’s motivated a lot of us to get involved directly.
The civil service racket is an absurdity. Hard or impossible to fire incompetents or clearly corrupt individuals often times, and they are unionized. There is no reason to allow them to unionize, because as many people have pointed out, they never are forced to negotiate with the people who pay their salaries. Instead, politicians looking for votes and money kiss their civil service asses. It may be too late, but Americans are waking up and getting in the game. The new right seems to be winning at this point. Of course we will still have to surmount the crooked election apparatus in November that gave us PedoHitler Cornpop et al at the helm. If that election is anything like 2020 as far as cheating goes, there’s gonna be big trouble, and it won’t be about the bernaise sauce in the Senate dining room.
In California being a 'public servant' pays well. LA county supervisors are paid over $250,000 per year. That's why they want to continue to be elected public servants and any level....
I'm not against term limits, per se. However, neither "age limits" (which I wonder if they would even be legal... isn't there some law about not discriminating based on age or you know, other thangs...) nor term limits fix the problem of career / idiot politicians.
You want to know who's to blame for the current political mess?
We are. The electorate. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
If you (the 73% of people who think there should be age limits) don't like the geriatrics who keep running for office ... effect change. Of course, this would require you to put down your Big Mac and beer, put your porn on pause and actually spend a modicum of time looking into the issues and candidates.
We don't need more rules and regulations, we need a citizenry who actually gives a shit, rather than one that just complains about the outcomes, when not putting any effort into the process.
Back about 30 years ago or so, Massachusetts passed a ballot initiative to implement term limits in the state, with about 80% approving. The State promptly ignored the initiative and never implemented it. That exact same election, Massachusetts reelected Ted Kennedy to his 6th term as Senator. Spare me your term limits. Voters can you utilize them every election if they like by voting the bums out.
I've never favored term limits. I voted against term limits in California whenever that was on the ballot—1996, I guess. Any time anyone calls for term limits nationally, I say: "Look at California." Term limits empower the permanent bureaucracy. And, as you point out here, the same bad apples cycle through different offices anyway. Also—this is one nobody loves to hear—term limits let voters off the hook.
Politics isn't easy. Democrats learned decades ago how to "game" term limits. They cultivate a deep bench of candidates. They run for—and win!—nonpartisan offices, such as city council and school board seats. Water policy is boring as hell, but elected water boards are very powerful. I've met countless Republican activists who make these quixotic runs for state and even federal office and yet the thought of running for local office is anathema. Very few will entertain the idea. Those who do—and who run successfully—have ended up in the state legislature and, in a couple of cases, Congress. But that's retail politics and ain't nobody got time for that.
Good stuff, as always, Bray.
"Term limits empower the permanent bureaucracy."
Exact and succinct.
I am pained to say its Mr Boychuk’s comment not mine-
I appreciate your comment about Democrats gaming term limits.
To look at the obverse, I've noticed for decades that Republicans have had a long game of taking over state legislatures which has given them incredible power now.
Maybe each party has its own gaming strategy. That doesn't mean one of them is any more a good guy than the other. A pox on both their houses. It's like a uniparty now anyway.
Good point. Like our host here, I write from California, a one-party state. Republicans here are of zero significance. They're easy not to think about here or elsewhere.
I lived in Wyoming most of my life, and moved to Utah a few years ago. What's a Democrat?
Ha!
UNIPARTY At the state level no, at National yes.
Then again power is returning to the states and localities.
There was nothing in DC intrinsically worth having except legitimacy- and they have destroyed legitimacy.
We can quite take them piecemeal, we can do that.
DC is not Rome, London, Paris or Moscow. Nothing there but what the Republic built.
Just legitimacy and they squandered it.
Take the rest, let our natural arrangements of Federation return, not without strife, but its quite doable. Electing a President, Congress, Senate doesn’t change anything (they can’t, sunk costs fatalism) but we can take the states.
*yes, sunk cost fatalism.
Apres Moi, le deluge.
At the National level yes
At the state level no, not most states.
Dobbs and our natural drift back to Federation as opposed to this bloated centralized absurdity offer great opportunities...
...for Subsidiarity to saw off the rungs higher on the ladder- meaning states can undermine up to Federal instead being 💩 on from above. It won’t be so much fun at the top tossing chamberpots 💩 down on the peasants when they saw away what your standing on. Why just punch up when they’re so precariously balanced, why bother climbing up if its hopeless? Just undermine the usurpers above us. Local can also undermine and even defy state capitols - the election of the right sheriff is enough.
Another way of saying its the underdogs prerogative to snap at the testicles.
We don’t need DC, and we can’t afford them either.
I agree, the uniparty is at the national level.
But at least in my locality we’re no fonder of the state government. State government is all for local control as long as the granularity stops at the state legislature level. They’re forever imposing unwieldy, inappropriate, and unrealistic dictates on small rural towns.
Then charge your local politicians and boards with sawing out the rungs on the ladder below. Let all the little John Marshall's make their decisions , now lets see them enforce it - be in ah 'well regulated' groups to stand against same.
^Sheriffs are most useful in this regard, in my part of NY State [yes, that NY state] the writ of gun control was directly refused when Cuomo passed the SAFE Act, indeed this entire part of the state west of Binghamton is about as safe as English tax collectors in the Scottish highlands of the past [it helps that these are the descendants of the very border highlanders here] , the writ goes no farther than the sword and the swords are ours. Hochul has to be content like Cuomo and Bloomberg before her with petty gestures and thievery ... and threatening the gun dealers license [on whom the ACT is enforced, economic and competent in truth].
Since your state is GOP the National Dems will not be instantly inclined to fly to the aid of the State govt that overreaches, this is ideal. Ideal.
You want them you see to see and feel alone, friendless, impotent ....
...you want the actual power in the center in DC placed on the horns of a dilemma:
>help the enemy GOP and so help a State Capitol , their actual constituted rivals?
By precedent empowering State governments again?
XOR
> let the commons taste power, let the rantings of the statist left be seen flailing?
Power is like a Carnivore tasting its first kill's blood - they want MORE.
The Dilemma: Let the cause of Progress fail before the already aroused commons OR by directing scarce National Resources at the center [and they are quite scarce for DC] help a natural indeed constituted rival?
The enemy on the horns of a dilemma and to we locals either horn is worth a battle.
For you see my dear Sir Tardigrade - this is FEUDALISM in conflict, not the Communists vs the Fascists ...no. This is simple FEUDALISM.
* Sir Humphrey approves ^^^
'Term limits empower the permanent bureaucracy.' Good point.
Wonder why I've been thinking about Yes, Minister quite a lot lately…
We so need the counsel of Sir Humphrey now...
You sure about that? Sir Humphrey represented the deep state, the bureaucracy. The Minister represented the flaky politicians grasping for votes, sometimes trying to do the right thing yet easily frightened. I’m not sure either one was the good guy and I think that was the point of the show, much as we loved the individual characters. Even Bernard, the idealist with a conscience, was easily swayed by Humphrey’s arguments.
Sir Humphrey and Yes Minister/ Yes PM should be required in Civics , IR, every citizen must see: because the commons had no idea and only dimly begin to accept they’ve been had even now. Yes we must teach Sir Humphrey to the world- just as we teach firemen about flammables, just as we teach soldiers about the opponent, indeed just as we teach young athletes how to block or pass.
Yes I’m sure about that.
Of course they must know the truth to vote or have a concept of politics. They need to know yes at present their vote DOESN’T count .
Would you keep deceiving the commons? I think you wouldn’t.
At the Federal level we’re electing TV actors who have no power over the actual government of 3 millions and 1-2X as many contractors.
So its all Carnies anyway (TV and the media are full of people who would have been Carnival performers a century ago).
Who knows at the State level.
The real Gerontocracy is the Civil Service, where the multiple offices are held at once to get 2-3 paychecks. The elected are not allowed by law and rules to touch our pure and virtuous civil service with their grubby politics, but that negated the vote. Life is hard choices, eh?
Fond memories of Lt. Col. Vindman complaining that the President of the United States had interfered with foreign policy.
I knew somebody who was employed full time as a state bureaucrat AND a full time academic at a state university. So they had two well paying, full time state jobs.
A couple of commenthls....
1.Sheila Kuehl was one of the original Mickey Mouse Mousketeers (i am sure Chris knows this!).
2. We already have term limits, it is called elections. The only problem is that the same assholes keep voting for the same assholes.
3. A corollary is that one cannot be mad at, say, Gavin Newsome, for doing stupid, destructive things and being a petty condescending asshole because he is only doing what his voters told him to do. But you can be very angry at those people stupid enough to vote for him.
It’s always been that way. Sam Rayburn was Speaker of the House forever. Strom Thurman served forever as well. Once these guys figure out the game they’ve got a job for life.
That's it. The game.
i think if more people saw politicians like Kuehl helping themselves from the civic service buffet, it might be a lot more apparent that a lot of them can’t seem to do anything else (i mean, isn’t that why Fetterman wants in?).
term limits alone aren’t gonna cut it!
ARTICLE V!!!!!
I think there's a homunculus growing on Fettermans neck that may serve as his own term limit.
🤣🤣
V!!! 💪
No term limits, but all those seeking reelection must submit to water-boarding by their constituents.
How about election trial by combat? Should weed out the olds very naturally.
I remember reading a science fiction story, about sixty years ago, that explored exactly that premise - "election trial by combat". My never perfect memory suggests the protagonist gave up at about age 60 because he was "too old"! Maybe we SHOULD implement that process.
Yes, or maybe Dodge Wrench. I know a few skulls I would like to bounce a wrench off.
Me, too! Most are under 50! The worst are under 30!
Oh goodness. You always crack me up
You'd have to really, really want the job.
I'm literally Cracking here....
You're right, of course, although Boomers always have great voter turnout, and I'll bet they don't think 75 or 80 is old. They also think (if my own circle of Boomers is indicative of the group) that it is *vital* to keep voting for the incumbent of their own party because *otherwise the other party will control the House!!!*
The real reason for my comment, though, is that I hadn't thought about that game for decades. Man, I loved it. Leaping from the dresser to the bed. Streeeeetching from the arm of one couch to the arm of the other one. Thank you for bringing it up.
I remember playing that game as a kid in my cousin's basement 50 years ago. We invented it, as I'm sure kids have been doing for millennia. It must be universal since no one taught it to us.
I’m a boomer and it’s f’ing old.
Heh. Exception that proves the rule, with all due respect.
Not really. Just because your grandparents or parents, or whatever, are/were like that doesn't mean everyone is.
IF the incumbent is doing a good job representing your state, by all means vote them in again. IF, however, that incumbent decides they don't need to represent your state, vote them out. It works. If you don't believe it, ask Richard Lugar.
The problem is not how the tyrants are selected, but the unchecked power they wield.
Mind you beware; Covid Fascism may have discredited the present sinecuristas but in terms of power, Politics as Profession probably got a big boost. They have tasted Power and will want more.
Sheila Kuehl is an interesting case. She graduated from Harvard Law School, for whatever that's worth. I don't know if "idiot" is the right term for her. I don't know that intelligence or the lack of it is important when it comes to being addicted to government jobs. Plenty of smart people are addicted to that sort of job. It's kind of amazing. Some of them complain about the conditions they work in, their failure to be promoted and the "idiots" they have for colleagues. But they cannot bring themselves to leave government and work in the real economy.
If anything, Harvard Law School is a further argument against her intelligence. For evidence that the intelligence of Ivy League alumni is vastly overstated, I present: the United States of America.
My contention is that the desire to hold elected office has become the purview of the narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths among us. There may once have been discernable differences between political parties, and candidates; but that seems to no longer be the case. Once elected, they seem to become, in their own minds at least, members of the ruling class. And we keep electing them!
In politics the worst rises to the top. It's the opposite of the free market. I'm more ways than one. Which is not surprising considering politicians pull the levers of the state. The state is the monopoly of violence. The one ring ring to rule them all.
When I was 9 or 10, we visited an uncle who tended the sewage treatment plant in a small town. My father thought it would be 'educational' for my sisters and I to tour that somewhat malodorous facility. I remember commenting on the lumps floating on one of the ponds. My uncle observed that shit always rises to the top. To which my Dad replied, "Just like government". Nothing has changed in nearly 70 years.
Ha! Life lessons learned at a young age. It's funny how that stuff sticks with you.
Sticks TO you, too, that stuff... ;)
narcissists with martyr complexes. which im sure harvard helped mold. “you educated elite better-than superior person must now go into the world with your ivy education and help make the lives of these poor teeming deplorable flyovers better with your infallible genius! after all, why else would you get into harvard?”
Yeah, yeah, that does ring true. We keep electing them. And once elected, not only do they form the ruling class, they plug right into the big money forces that run the country behind the scenes.
these elite colleges and their graduates are subject to political biases. there are certain realities that Ivy Leaguers just won't let themselves see plainly because they've already fully dedicated their intelligence to the service of an ideology or political party. everything they see comes through that lens, which obscures or distorts. and the more intelligent a person is, the more facts they can marshal in a moment, the more complicated the theories they can understand, the more completely and easily they can rationalize their own idiotic perspective on reality.
If all you care about is money and power, and you don’t mind kissing ass and sucking up then politics is the career for you. And there are plenty of smart people doing it. Smart isn’t what we’re talking about here. Borderline sociopath is what we’re talking about.
Maybe because they'd have to do work.
Ha. Yeah. I used to know someone who worked at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab. When you asked him "How many people work at JPL?" he'd answer "About a third."
😂🤣 I think that's true for about all "real" jobs. (Not including any political jobs. Then it's WAY less.)
“Honey, my head hurts.”
“Well, darlin’, have some sinus meds.”
“But, what about this railroad spike in my temple?”
That’s what the demand for term limits sounds like. It completely ignores the actual problem:
Government Overreach.
As long as you allow government so much power; the ability to sell favours and reward cronies, it doesn’t matter how long our reps are in office.
Strip government of that power and not only will reps self-term limit, so will the army of lobbyists that are there to wine and dine and buy them.
So, limited terms?
No.
Limited government?
Yes.
You know, it’s not hard to fix this. But of course there is no will to do it. All we have to do is set firm term and income limits. It’s a can of worms of course, because they’re so effing clever at gaming the system. Look at Joe Biden as a sterling example. What’s he worth now, 600 million? A man who has been in politics since the age of 28? Why doesn’t this upset anybody on the left? Instead they get their panties in a wad over Trump who actually earned his money.
And these people in their 80s still trying to get elected tells you more about their lust for power and influence than anything else. It’s sickening. I can’t stand them, any of them. And that’s where we are here in America. Most of us can’t stand any of them. They may be the richest and the most powerful but they’re also the most hated.
It’s not the age of the elected officials that is offensive; it’s the ones hanging around for decades just milking their position and taking their constituency for granted. Americans are lazy to the extent that up until recently most of us were not particularly active in politics. Look where that got us. One “benefit” of the insane clown posse destroying life as we know it is that it’s motivated a lot of us to get involved directly.
The civil service racket is an absurdity. Hard or impossible to fire incompetents or clearly corrupt individuals often times, and they are unionized. There is no reason to allow them to unionize, because as many people have pointed out, they never are forced to negotiate with the people who pay their salaries. Instead, politicians looking for votes and money kiss their civil service asses. It may be too late, but Americans are waking up and getting in the game. The new right seems to be winning at this point. Of course we will still have to surmount the crooked election apparatus in November that gave us PedoHitler Cornpop et al at the helm. If that election is anything like 2020 as far as cheating goes, there’s gonna be big trouble, and it won’t be about the bernaise sauce in the Senate dining room.
In California being a 'public servant' pays well. LA county supervisors are paid over $250,000 per year. That's why they want to continue to be elected public servants and any level....
I'm not against term limits, per se. However, neither "age limits" (which I wonder if they would even be legal... isn't there some law about not discriminating based on age or you know, other thangs...) nor term limits fix the problem of career / idiot politicians.
You want to know who's to blame for the current political mess?
We are. The electorate. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
If you (the 73% of people who think there should be age limits) don't like the geriatrics who keep running for office ... effect change. Of course, this would require you to put down your Big Mac and beer, put your porn on pause and actually spend a modicum of time looking into the issues and candidates.
We don't need more rules and regulations, we need a citizenry who actually gives a shit, rather than one that just complains about the outcomes, when not putting any effort into the process.
Back about 30 years ago or so, Massachusetts passed a ballot initiative to implement term limits in the state, with about 80% approving. The State promptly ignored the initiative and never implemented it. That exact same election, Massachusetts reelected Ted Kennedy to his 6th term as Senator. Spare me your term limits. Voters can you utilize them every election if they like by voting the bums out.