Torn on Term Limits

Lately, I have been feeling a bit conflicted on a political issue I have felt strong about for some time: term limits. I have been torn because my longtime support for instituting term limits at many levels of government is going against my opinion that New York City would be better served if the term-limited Michael Bloomberg were allowed to stay on as the mayor.

I didn't always support term limits for politicians. When I was in college, I felt that if a member of Congress was popular enough to win an election in his city, district, state, etc., then he or she should be allowed to run for as long as they'd like. My thinking went that a person should not be denied the ability to vote for a long-sitting incumbent just because he or she had been in office too long.

Over time, however, my view on this changed, particularly as it related Congress, and I became convinced that term limits would be in the best interest of the country. The fact of the matter is that politicians today, at least at the federal level, often have jobs for life. Whereas when the country was founded, serving in government was seen as a part-time duty to go hand-in-hand with the representative's really work, politics has today itself become a fulltime job. As a result, what we have now is a class of professional politicians who stay in office for decades and decades, and are basically ruled over by one over-riding consideration: will a vote or specific piece of legislation help or hurt in a re-election campaign. That's all. This is obviously bad for the country, and because incumbents have enormous advantages over any challengers (districts designed specifically for them, the ability to raise big money, near universal name recognition from having served in office etc), especially those who are not personally wealthy, they can basically stay in office as long as they want.

Anyway, I am not going to get too much into why I think term limits would be good at the federal level. For starters, it is never going to happen. Amending the Constitution is hard enough, but hoping for sitting members to vote for a change that would eventually bounce them all from office, is about as far-fetched as me dating Marissa Miller. I've accepted that both will not ever happen.

What's most pressing to me regarding this issue is what is happening in New York City right now. Mayor Mike Bloomberg is in his second term, which will run out at the end of the next year, and he is forbidden from seeking a third term. Wishing to remain in office, Bloomberg is doing whatever he can to repeal the law so he can run for a third term. He is pushing the City Council for the change, thereby allowing the council's members to abolish their own term limits. Bloomberg, one of the wealthiest men in America, has vowed to spend whatever it takes to get the law erased, as well as be re-elected next year. His aides have said he would spend upwards of $80 million to win.

To me, it is clear that Bloomberg's push to remain in power represents many of the worst things about politics and office-seeking: he is trying to buy an office, he greasing the wheels and any one else in power to get what he wants, he is trying to erase a law that many New Yorkers favor. All in all it's a disgraceful power-grab. Yet, despite this, I have not really had a problem with Bloomberg trying to stay in office. Why? I think Bloomberg has been a tremendous mayor, and any of his potential replacements would be wholly unable to do one-fifth the job Bloomberg has done. For this reason, I've overlooked his behavior.

The way I look at it, the roster of people who want to seek the job is terrible: Marty Markowitz? Christine Quinn? William Thompson? And the frontrunner, congressman Anthony Weiner? Are you serious? The drop in intelligence, ability, and sheer business from Mike Bloomberg to any of three three would be like jumping off the Empire State Building and going down to the pavement. Anthony Weiner can barely run his small office staff in Congress, how would he do running the largest city in America in the middle of a national fiscal crisis?

Of course, the city likely won't collapse and die if Bloomberg leaves office. The city survived before Mike, and it will endure after Bloomberg. No one man is bigger than the government at any level, even if he or she is a great leader. I realize all of this, but I think this is one of those uncommon occasions where a political leader can do more good than harm by staying for a long time. These cases are extremely rare, but that speaks well to Bloomberg's abilities. I do not think many leaders could be better to guide New York City right now as the nation begins to encounter the likely longer-term impact of the Wall Street crisis. Therefore, this is a special case where term limits likely do some harm.

Still, as I said, it is tough to want to enforce an ironclad rule, then loosen your view when the situation suits it, or you believe it is merited. Laws are not meant to be broken on a whim. So as the titles indicates, I am torn here between my belief in the important of term limits in this country, and my opinion that Mike Bloomberg should be allowed to stay in office. Am I being hypocritical? I would love to hear readers' thoughts...