From: YOUNG@ricevm1.rice.edu (Garry Young)
Subject: Re: "Professional" politicians.  was Re: Study Explains Why *Political Scientists* Oppose Term Limitations
Organization: Rice University, Houston, TX
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:24:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.181926.3747@bnlux1.bnl.gov>
bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:

I really should know better than to respond to this kind of
stuff but what the hell.

First, the argument regarding political scientists and their
opposition to term limitations is simply not correct.   The
field is split on the subject.  From the various essays I have
read and conversations I have had I would say the split is about
60-40 among those who study legislatures.   For those who care,
David Brady of Stanford is an example of a major congressional
scholar who supports term limitations.

Second, the argument is fallacious.  Instead of responding to the
arguments that anti-term limitation scholars make the response is
simply "I believe that you have a vested interest in this therefore
the arguments you make are false."

Third, the implication that political scientists are somehow better
off by the non-imposition of term limitations is silly.  In truth,
term limitations would be a boon to people who study legislatures
since imposing them would provide a natural quasi-experiment for
studying their impact by comparing before and after.

I don't think there is any question that political science as a
discipline tends to have a pro-status quo tendency to it but
I'm not convinced it is reflected in the term limitation argument.

I'm personally mixed on the question of term limitations (leaning
in opposition).  It strikes me as yet another of the ideas that pop
up ever year that people think is going to be the panacea that solves
all the world's problems.  The arguments against them are very real
and have to be considered.  It will take away the right of people to
re-elect people they like.  It probably will greatly reduce the ability
of members to develop the expertise to competently address policy.
The possible result - and this is where all the 'professionalization' -
notions are coming from - is that legislators would have to rely more
heavily on the expertise of staff, lobbyists, and bureaucrats for
everything but the most general of policy decisions.  High turnover
institutions like some state legislatures are notable for the dominance
of lobbyists and bureaucrats over decisionmaking.  Another possible
result is the continued shifting of power from the legislative to the
executive branch.  Also, the argument that we will see less pork and
whatnot because of term limitations is probably dubious too.  There
was a time in U.S. history when turnover in the House was very high.
At the time local offices were generally more highly valued and
Congress was viewed as a stepping stone.  Imposition of term limitations
could bring this back, since the value of being a House member would
be lessened, and what we might see are members who basically spend
their time in Washington trying to get elected to something else.
This would include pork since the legislator would want to go back
home and say "Look at the totally cool nuclear powered chicken plucker
I got you.   Now please elect me ___________."

On the other hand, term limitations will probably end divided
government i.e., one branch controlled by Demos the other by Repubs.
That and the presumed increase in power by the political parties,
resulting from the destruction of individual campaign organizations,
may result in a government that is more policy coherent and less
subject to the obstructive tendencies of one branch over the other.

There are lots of other arguments on both sides but my gut reaction
is that overall the impact won't be all that noticiable and, in fifty
or so years, some bunch of people will propose a new panacea to solve
all our problems by trying to get rid of term limitations.

garry
and yes i'm a political scientist
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe in this and it's been proven by research,
that he who fucks nuns will later join the church."
                                          - The Clash
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17613 alt.individualism:2367 alt.activism:7477