Though in the short term, as long as those reforms are not in place, I see an argument for term limits. At the same time, I would rather invest my time in more meaningful reforms that would make term limits irrelevant.

This is the key component that makes me against term limits.

One can talk all kinds about the good of doing this or that and the secondary and tertiary benefits. Bottom line the infringement of my freedom and my choices about government is an exceptional argument against term limits.

Mentioning FDR, for every politician that might have done a great job post what they would imaginary term limits (though I do not have any sort of FDR love), there’s likely to be more that are damaging. Sort of like mentioning the one good king out of centuries of tyranny.

If the individual wants to maintain a politically active life in different roles, the concerns about the future remains relevant for them. Sure, they may not be seeking another term in congress, but if they make their bid for governor all that stuff will come up.

The big question in my mind is how much it might curtail spending. On one hand you’re more likely to keep the idealism of doing what’s right during a term limit and potentially less likely that corruption with lobbyists. But… with the churn of politicians it might be easier to spend the money to get someone corrupt in office for a term to achieve your goals. If someone can convince me that term limits would increase government spending, I’m pretty sure I’d be out pretty quick.

One personal anecdote, here in New Mexico our Senator of 36 years, Pete Domenici is retiring. Prior to that announcement, many had made their minds up not to vote for him again. The argument against that was the lost seniority and how that helps New Mexico out. Based on the pre-announcement arguments it seemed like at this point many continued to vote for him because he got a prominent role on committees which is probably more helpful to a small state like ours than others. Term limits came up frequently as a method of evening it out with the larger states.

In an ideal society, many more people would hold office at some point in their lives, making government much more participatory.This would require the ability to take several years off from one’s normal career path, including the ability to return to “civilian” life pretty much where you left off. It could also require similar changes in family arrangements. We would not have career politicians. I can see term limits as valuable — even important — in this kind of (perhaps utopian) future.

In the present, however, we do have career politicians, except at the local level in small communities.There are very few exceptions and I don’t think term limits can contribute to increasing the number of those exceptions. It limits voter choice by saying that even though you think Suzy Smith is doing a fabulous job and should stay in office forever, you’re not allowed to vote for her (and she’s not allowed to run) any more. For me to accept this limitation on the choices available to me as a voter, there has to a pretty substantial benefit.

If term limits appeared to be helping to increase the ratio of citizen office holders to professional, career politicians, I would reconsider my position. But I don’t think term limits can do that by itself. Even public financing of campaigns and term limits together can do that by themselves (although public financing has other benefits). It will take much larger socio-economic changes and a much more egalitarian society to create the circumstances where term limits can play a positive role.

Just my two cents.