Term limits are a good idea. If you are special interests promoting a certain agenda. Because once a politician has “termed out,” he might be particularly amenable to influence. After all, he’s no longer accountable to the voters. Unless he’s seeking higher office, he has reached the cul-de-sac of his career. His constituency might become the people in the next pew, or people who might be hiring in the future, or the guys who are buying the drinks.
And is our talent pool so deep that we can afford to get rid of a dedicated public servant? Should we trade an effective incumbent for naive rookie?
Not that we have any incumbents that I’m particularly in love with. Most of them should have been limited to half a term.
I know they mean well. But their interests are parochial. Which makes them susceptible to special interests promoting a certain agenda.