It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.
I completely understand the deep frustration with certain individuals, for example, Schumer and Pelosi. But it has little to do with their age or the number of terms they have had, in my view. Things like this should be determined, by voters, on a case by case basis.
If people are really that animated about changing the guard, then they need to do the work and show up on primaries, whether that is going so far as running themselves, or working for campaigns, or at least voting. But arbitrarily preempting the choices that others may want to vote for if they like a candidate, regardless (or perhaps because) of age/years of experience seems very unwise.
It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.
It isn’t their age that is the problem. The problem is the ideals they must hold to remain in office at that age: I want to retire some day.
I want a candidate who shares that value.
A candidate who keeps running for office long past retirement age is a candidate with a wildly unhealthy work/life balance. They demonstrate with their actions that they do not share our values.
We might not need a formal, legal requirement to prohibit a retirement-age candidate from taking office, but we should ask the electorate to consider their own expectations for retirement when choosing a candidate.
Eh, I’ve seen people doing a job they like way past the “standard” retirement age. But here’s the important part - IF they are not being forced out by the company and/or the culture. It so happens a lot of people like having a sense of purpose and doing a job they like is often a big part of that. Telling people to wander off to go play shuffleboard or whatever the fuck and just wait to die is not much of a purpose.
Often it’s doctors I’ve seen work well into their 70s/80s, though I think the corruption brought by acquisition of practices/hospitals and insurance companies is probably changing that, I’ve known of at least one doctor more or less forced into retirement against his will.
Some people actually really do believe in the idea of civic duty and serving their country, so I have zero problem with politicians that work way past the “standard” retirement age. I’d have to take it on a case by case basis. I definitely have zero interest in arbitrary age limits and term limits removing good candidates from the field entirely. That should be up to the voters.
Someone like Pelosi irritates me no end, but it’s more her stance on insider trading and the way she has tried to gatekeep progressives from entering than anything else. She could be in her 30s and on her first term, and it would still drive me up the wall.
I think it absolutely has to do with the number of terms they had when it’s clear they’re there to line their pockets instead of working for the working class. They’ve had ample time to work against the creep of fascism and they failed or are complicit. The fact that they’re throwing a fit over being pushed to make way for younger and more progressive candidates just reveals their selfishness.
If a viable candidate runs in the primary, and the voters show up, then that’s the opportunity to have the old guard pushed out. I don’t see any problem with that and it’s how it is supposed to work. What I object to is some kind of blanket rules about term limits or age limits. That removes the opportunity for voters to reward candidates they like.
I just don’t think term limits are anywhere near the panacea some people seem to think they are. I’ve heard crusty old conservatives mutter “term limits” about politics ever since I can remember. Almost in the same tone I hear some of them say “cull the herd” and “tort reform” these days. It just seems like some mantra to repeat.
And now I see others outside the conservasphere sometimes taking up this mantra. It strikes me as a distraction, if I’m honest. The real problem is money and legalized bribery and I don’t know what term limits would possibly accomplish, other than just having more people with no experience in these roles. There is nothing to say they could not be groomed by the likes of Thiel and just do self-dealing from minute one just because of their age or the number of terms they have had.
I’ve always been baffled by this heroic notion of a magical outsider, brought into politics, and simply by virtue of being an outsider that it would be a good thing. Politician is about the only endeavor where there is this odd wish to have a NON-expert in that position. The term limits mantra often seems to go hand in hand with the pining for the outsider thing. And I’ll just never get it.
Being a politician is like any other field, and requires expertise. I don’t see people pining for term limits on doctors, mechanics, plumbers, businessmen, dentists, etc., and I sure don’t see people signing up to be the first to have their teeth drilled by an outsider, just to “shake things up”.
Yeah. There are states with term limits now. They’re no better governed than states without them. Term limits are one of those obvious solutions that actually solve nothing.
It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.
I completely understand the deep frustration with certain individuals, for example, Schumer and Pelosi. But it has little to do with their age or the number of terms they have had, in my view. Things like this should be determined, by voters, on a case by case basis.
If people are really that animated about changing the guard, then they need to do the work and show up on primaries, whether that is going so far as running themselves, or working for campaigns, or at least voting. But arbitrarily preempting the choices that others may want to vote for if they like a candidate, regardless (or perhaps because) of age/years of experience seems very unwise.
It isn’t their age that is the problem. The problem is the ideals they must hold to remain in office at that age: I want to retire some day.
I want a candidate who shares that value.
A candidate who keeps running for office long past retirement age is a candidate with a wildly unhealthy work/life balance. They demonstrate with their actions that they do not share our values.
We might not need a formal, legal requirement to prohibit a retirement-age candidate from taking office, but we should ask the electorate to consider their own expectations for retirement when choosing a candidate.
Workaholic candidates do not belong in office.
Eh, I’ve seen people doing a job they like way past the “standard” retirement age. But here’s the important part - IF they are not being forced out by the company and/or the culture. It so happens a lot of people like having a sense of purpose and doing a job they like is often a big part of that. Telling people to wander off to go play shuffleboard or whatever the fuck and just wait to die is not much of a purpose.
Often it’s doctors I’ve seen work well into their 70s/80s, though I think the corruption brought by acquisition of practices/hospitals and insurance companies is probably changing that, I’ve known of at least one doctor more or less forced into retirement against his will.
Some people actually really do believe in the idea of civic duty and serving their country, so I have zero problem with politicians that work way past the “standard” retirement age. I’d have to take it on a case by case basis. I definitely have zero interest in arbitrary age limits and term limits removing good candidates from the field entirely. That should be up to the voters.
Someone like Pelosi irritates me no end, but it’s more her stance on insider trading and the way she has tried to gatekeep progressives from entering than anything else. She could be in her 30s and on her first term, and it would still drive me up the wall.
I think it absolutely has to do with the number of terms they had when it’s clear they’re there to line their pockets instead of working for the working class. They’ve had ample time to work against the creep of fascism and they failed or are complicit. The fact that they’re throwing a fit over being pushed to make way for younger and more progressive candidates just reveals their selfishness.
If a viable candidate runs in the primary, and the voters show up, then that’s the opportunity to have the old guard pushed out. I don’t see any problem with that and it’s how it is supposed to work. What I object to is some kind of blanket rules about term limits or age limits. That removes the opportunity for voters to reward candidates they like.
There are term limits for other positions, why not here? What’s your objection to term limits?
I just don’t think term limits are anywhere near the panacea some people seem to think they are. I’ve heard crusty old conservatives mutter “term limits” about politics ever since I can remember. Almost in the same tone I hear some of them say “cull the herd” and “tort reform” these days. It just seems like some mantra to repeat.
And now I see others outside the conservasphere sometimes taking up this mantra. It strikes me as a distraction, if I’m honest. The real problem is money and legalized bribery and I don’t know what term limits would possibly accomplish, other than just having more people with no experience in these roles. There is nothing to say they could not be groomed by the likes of Thiel and just do self-dealing from minute one just because of their age or the number of terms they have had.
I’ve always been baffled by this heroic notion of a magical outsider, brought into politics, and simply by virtue of being an outsider that it would be a good thing. Politician is about the only endeavor where there is this odd wish to have a NON-expert in that position. The term limits mantra often seems to go hand in hand with the pining for the outsider thing. And I’ll just never get it.
Being a politician is like any other field, and requires expertise. I don’t see people pining for term limits on doctors, mechanics, plumbers, businessmen, dentists, etc., and I sure don’t see people signing up to be the first to have their teeth drilled by an outsider, just to “shake things up”.
Yeah. There are states with term limits now. They’re no better governed than states without them. Term limits are one of those obvious solutions that actually solve nothing.