Reversal of opinion: An argument against term limits

When I first started this blog, I had a reader challenge my support of term limits. I had promised to write a defense of term limits but, as you know, it has never appeared. I think seriously about anyone who questions my viewpoints with well-constructed arguments. And after a lot of research and months of pondering the issue, I have changed my mind; I am not longer in support of term limits for legislative bodies.
Probably the single biggest influence leading to my about-face on this issue is the Michigan State Legislature. Or, more accurately, the complete incompetency of the Michigan State Legislature. Our economy is in shambles, yet our legislators are consumed with political grandstanding. They need to look important (or rather, important enough for whichever office they will pursue next.)

Our term limits have resulted in a "Chinese Fire Drill Ultimate Edition."  Mike Bishop started out with two terms in the State House, has termed out of the State Senate, and now it's off to the races for the position of Attorney General. Michelle McManus has termed out of both the House and Senate, so now she's after the Secretary of State position.

We are not seeing the end of career politicians; we're merely seeing them jump from one position to another. Term limits obviously do not get rid of career policians as we had hoped. And if we're going to have career politicians, wouldn't you rather them specializing in one or two positions instead of hop-scotching around?

I have to admit, the idea of career politicians really irks me. But when I delved more deeply into the issue, I began to think of the positives careerists bring to the table. Have you ever read an actual bill? They are complicated, often referring to multiple other areas of the law.

Would the driver's license fiasco with temporary work visas happened if some career pols would have been in office? It's possible, but a lot less likely. My co-worker had just purchased a vehicle and then was told that because of the unintended consequences of the law, it would be weeks before he could actually drive it. Think of all the high-tech people who come in on these visas to work for the auto, research, green, battery, etc. industries. "We made an oopsy...you can't drive for 3 or 4 weeks...Sorry!" Not a great way to welcome these innovators to our state.

With term limits, we also thought we'd get more competition in elections. In actuality, we're getting less. Instead of challenging incumbents, parties simply wait until seat-holders are termed out of office. Why take the chance of challenging an incumbent when you know they'll be gone in a few years? At least, I suspect this is the thinking. Why do you think Rebekkah Warren is running for Liz Brater's seat now, instead of running against an incumbent when she terms out of the House in two years? There's a 99% chance that seat will go to a Democrat. So it's either run now, or run against her own party's incumbent in two years. If you're looking to be a career politician, the answer is obvious.

What are we getting with term limits? Lansing staff, interest groups, and lobbyists are growing more influential and powerful. If you really want to get something done in Lansing, get in with the Lansing bureaucracy. We're getting politicians focused on making a name for themselves instead of focusing on legislating. We're getting politicians who can't balance the budget. When it comes down to it, what are we really getting? A mess in Lansing.

Term limits sound great. There are so many valid arguments supporting them. But Michigan's experience with term limits is showing us how sometimes the best theories sound great on paper, but when faced with reality, they just don't make the grade.