Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 9
Trump cultists have a thing they do. they point to the fact that very few people go around festooned head to toe in Joe Biden merchandise as proof that Biden is vastly unpopular.
they also use it to proove that the 2020 election was RIGGED AND STOLLEN. look, they say, nobody is waving Biden flags. nobody’s car is covered with Biden stickers. there are no Biden boat parades. he’s not holding hate rallies. therefore there’s no way that 81 million people voted for him.
it’s all patently moronic.
no, redhats, we don’t go prancing around in Biden cosplay because we’re not the brain-dead members of some fucked-up cult.
Joe Biden is the president. he’s not our tribal warlord. nobody’s worshiping the guy, because that’s not how normal politics works. we elected him to do a job, not to be the vengeance-dealing hate-avatar upon which we project all of our pathologies.
No. of Recommendations: 8
As is the case with anyone else wearing the D shirt instead of the R.
If politics and government are a team sport, I don't approach them like a fan where I live or die by my team or the players on it. I approach it like an OWNER. If the players aren't producing, get someone else out on the field. If a player commits a foul on or off the field that reflects upon their trustworthiness to be ON the field, get them off the team.
When numerous Democratic politicians went far astray,
* Bob Menendez - US Senator, Ohio
* Andrew Cuomo - New York Governor
* Rob Blagojevich - Illinois Governor
* Eliot Spitzer - New York Governor
* James Traficant - US Representative, OH
it didn't take two miliseconds for me to concur with indicting, convicting and jailing them or at least chasing them out of office. I'm particularly disgusted that somehow Bob Menendez escaped appropriate justice on his first go-around and is now wasting the public's time and resources on a second round of crimes involving far more serious corruption.
It's not a party thing, it's a human thing. Hell, Wikipedia has a landing page with links to federal, state and local politicians convicted of crimes while in office dating back to the 1850s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_Ame...When you cycle 537 people (435 + 100 + 2) through federal offices every two to four years amid a corruptly financed campaign process, there are GOING to be some bad seeds in the bunch. When they start sprouting or can be identified, yank 'em out. There's no emotional or brand attachment.
Put more plainly, the vast majority of politicians lack the communication and problem solving skills to be LEADERS so they shouldn't be treated like leaders to be followed. They should be treated like employees to be watched. Carefully.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 1
When you cycle 537 people (435 + 100 + 2) through federal offices every two to four years amid a corruptly financed campaign process, there are GOING to be some bad seeds in the bunch. When they start sprouting or can be identified, yank 'em out. There's no emotional or brand attachment.
Put more plainly, the vast majority of politicians lack the communication and problem solving skills to be LEADERS so they shouldn't be treated like leaders to be followed. They should be treated like employees to be watched. Carefully.
WTH
-------------
Well Put. The problem is some of these employees are so entrenched in safe districts that their performance has no effect on their assured re-election.
No. of Recommendations: 2
It was well-put. And it's why I favor term limits, so we don't get entrenched people. Granted, some districts would vote for a badger if it had the requisite letter after its name (either "D" or "R").
I'm thinking 2 terms for senators (and they have to serve both terms to qualify for the pension...right now it's less than one term), and maybe 5 terms for the House (again, serve all terms for the pension). I could be convinced at either 4 or 6 for the House. That way you don't have a Congress made up entirely of people who don't understand how things work, but you don't have someone who gets too comfortable, either.
No. of Recommendations: 6
And it's why I favor term limits, so we don't get entrenched people.
I think term limits are terrible, based on our experience here in Florida.
Three things happen with term limits:
1) You get a much weaker Legislature. Everyone's a lame duck the moment they win office - the day they're elected, you know the day their career in that chamber will end. No one can last, no one can survive beyond their term limit, so few (if any) legislators can ever accumulate any real power. Unlike the Executive, where 100% of the power vests with the governor/President, power is diffused within a legislative chamber, where each person is 1 of 100 or 1 of 435. Without the ability to form lasting relationships and power structures, the Legislature gets vastly weakened compared to the Executive. Especially since every Speaker and every Senate Majority leader is only going to have two years in that role.
2) Power shifts to the political factions and the "entrenched people" that get legislators elected. Again, every legislator's career comes with an expiration date - so the identity of the legislator matters far less than the folks who got him elected, and who will likely get their replacement elected. For example, Bernie Sanders has a lot of personal political power because of who he is and his own brand; but if every Senator serves only two terms, the power shifts away from the actual officeholder and towards the network of lobbyist, power-brokers, and money-men that gets their replacements in every decade or so.
3) Incumbents are even more protected. People just stop running against incumbents, because you know exactly when and where the next open seat is going to be. Why risk your political career running against someone in office, rather than waiting until they're forced out?
It's been horrible, and it's the reason why Florida is basically run by the Governor and whoever the Republican Powers that Be flagged for leadership eight years prior.
No. of Recommendations: 5
I think term limits are terrible, based on our experience here in Florida.
Do you think the same about the Presidency? I wonder because the Constitutional amendment was passed only after FDR was elected to 4 terms, and people in both parties saw the potential for an accumulation of power they thought unhealthy for the Republic.
I tend to agree with that analysis, so I wonder if it can be true over here, but not over there?
No. of Recommendations: 3
I tend to agree with that analysis, so I wonder if it can be true over here, but not over there?
Not just the Presidency - also Governors. But it works because the Executive is different than the Legislature. Because a Legislature is a collegial body with dozens or hundreds of members, and an Executive is a single office with only one officeholder.
When you're elected President - or a Governor - 100% of the power of that office is instantly yours on Day 1. There's only one President, only one Governor, so all of the power of the office is instantly available to the single person who occupies it. Arguably, that person is at the height of their political power right after they're first elected. Usually the act of getting elected brings a fair amount of political capital and everything that will be possible to do from that office is still possible, and the entire term is ahead of you so all of your allies and opponents know you have the maximum amount of time to bestow favors or mete out opposition.
Add to that the permanent staff of the Executive. Most of the federal government is permanent. A host of Departments and Agencies and full-time civil service staff, several hundreds of thousands of people strong. Granted, it's hard to wrestle that bureaucracy around - which is why its likened to turning a battleship. But still, on his first day in office, the President is handed a battleship to implement his policies.
The Legislature doesn't work that way. Any individual member is one of a hundred, or several hundred. The power of the chamber is divided, set in opposition to itself both between the competing parties and among the members of each party. The chambers have formal leadership structures and committees and a host of other things precisely to overcome the division of power, so that the members have mechanisms by which the legislative power can actually be exercised effectively and strategically. Even then, consider the results. It's a massive problem of collective action, four hundred and thirty-five people that all theoretically have exactly the same power (a single vote), that have to organize and work together to wield even the slightest amount of actual authority.
So legislators need time. They need to build relationships and alliances and shared interests and informal (or formal) coalitions so that the collective legislative power can meaningfully be exercised. Having legislators be in the chamber long enough to be powerful - or even just letting them fight tooth and nail for power over a short period of time - allows some of those pigs to be more equal than others, and power actually gets exercised. Term limits destroy that.
Worse, leadership is never in the role for more than two years. Committee chairs are never in the role for more than two years. In each Congress, in both chambers, all of the members in the most senior class (the ones who just are at the end of their last term) are always about to leave. In every Congress, it's always the last Congress for the more senior members - and since the senior members are the ones who will hold leadership positions, it means that the the Congressional leaders are always re-setting and are always new to the role. So while whoever newly wins the Presidency will certainly hold that role for four years, and possibly eight, whoever's the Speaker of the House or Budget Committee Chair in any given Congress will be gone in two years. Which means they have much less power - especially over the agencies and departments - than they do today.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Worse, leadership is never in the role for more than two years. Committee chairs are never in the role for more than two years. In each Congress, in both chambers, all of the members in the most senior class (the ones who just are at the end of their last term) are always about to leave.
I’m not sure why you’re focusing on “two” years. Maybe the term limits could be 10. Or maybe there’s a total for both houses of, say, 18 or something. (Pick a number, I don’t know what it should be.)
(Side note: I am so *totally* in favor of term limits for the Supremes. It would help stop the gaming of trying to find the youngest, most ideologically rigid, least experienced in favor of perhaps people who’ve been around the track a few more laps. Again, I don’t know what the number should be, but I’ll throw out “20”. And no reason they couldn’t continue to serve on some lower level or something.)
No. of Recommendations: 1
I’m not sure why you’re focusing on “two” years. Maybe the term limits could be 10. Or maybe there’s a total for both houses of, say, 18 or something. (Pick a number, I don’t know what it should be.)
Oh, it's not about the length of the terms. It's how often you have elections. We have elections every two years, so the leadership will only serve for two years.
What happens with term limits - practically - is that the Legislature breaks down into classes based on the year they were elected. Let's say we have a five-term limit for the House, or ten years in total. Everyone that's elected in 2020 will reach their final term in 2028, and be out of the House by 2030. Everyone that's elected in 2022 will reach their final term in 2030, and be out of the House by 2032. Etc.
So immediately after the election in 2020, you know right then who all the senior people in the House will be in the 2028-2029 Congress. The current freshmen. Everyone more senior than them will be gone. It is literally impossible for anyone to be more senior, other than the ones who were just elected. So you know that the Speaker in 2028 will be a member of that "class." Whoever was previously Speaker will be termed out, so you'll have a new Speaker in 2028 - who will serve for exactly two years, before they are termed out.
That's what ends up happening. Regardless of how many terms you have, the most senior members of Congress in each two-year Congress will be the ones who were elected in the cycle X-2 years ago (where X is the number of years they can serve). Which translates into all of leadership - the Speaker, the Leaders, the whips, the important committee chairs - will assume their roles during the last two years of their allowable time in office.
So here in Florida, we'll know shortly after the 2024 elections who the Speaker of the Florida House will likely be in 2031. We have a four-term limit (two years per term), which means each cycle we elect about 30 Reps out of the 120 total. About 20 will be Republicans. One of those 20 will be the Speaker in 2031, when everyone more senior has been limited out. Typically, we'll know within a term or two who it will be.
The only difference with the U.S. Congress is that we don't know for sure which party will control the chamber, so there's uncertainty about which party the leadership will come from. But if you have term limits of X years, in every Congress the leadership will be drawn from the class that was elected X-2 years ago, and they will only have that two years in the post before they're replaced in the next cycle.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't think that's right. Just look at Johnson. He's not "senior", but he is Speaker. I believe he's a first-termer.
So one counter-example disproves your hypothesis, if we are speaking in science terms (which I'm prone to do).
Anyone can be speaker. Yes, the senior class will be the ones in their last term. But there is no assurance that they will reach their limit. People get voted out all the time. Not as frequently as they should. Incumbency is a powerful thing. But they do get voted out. Leadership may tend to be chosen from that group, but Johnson proves that it may not shake-out that way consistently.
I rather liked Robin Williams' line that politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed frequently, and for the same reasons. :-)
No. of Recommendations: 2
I don't think that's right. Just look at Johnson. He's not "senior", but he is Speaker. I believe he's a first-termer.
Because we don't have term limits.
Under the current system, power flows within the House coalitions based on all the things that go into "ordinary" politics. Bargains, alliances, coalitions based on interest or political support or shared patrons or what have you.
Term limits end up breaking all that. Everyone's going to be gone in ten or twelve years. No one can build a lasting power base. No one can cultivate long-term relationships. When you are first elected, every single person in the House that isn't in your class will be gone for your final two years; and every single other person that will be in the House during those last two years (other than your class) hasn't been elected yet.
That dynamic ends up driving the Legislators into classes, and after a few cycles of this each "senior" class ends up just taking the leadership positions in turn. Since no one can outlast the term limits, no one can build up enough power to disrupt that tendency. It's a mirror of the impact of term limits on running against incumbents; just like there's no reason to take on an incumbent when you know day and date when the seat will be open, there's little reason to try for the Speakership against a more senior Rep when you know they'll be gone next term. Over time, you just end up with the roles landing with the "class" whose turn it is.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Oh, it's not about the length of the terms. It's how often you have elections. We have elections every two years, so the leadership will only serve for two years
Why is that? Right now leadership serves for two years, and then is re-elected if the bloc wants him/her to continue. If the term limits were, say, 12 years, you could have 6 years in the House, and you could be House Leader for as many of those as you could be elected to by your peers.
I am against the accumulation of entrenched power by, say, McConnell or Pelosi. There are some seats which are “safe”, and thereby guarantee longevity. The leadership should turn over more frequently to give other states and leaders the opportunity to do things in a different way. No, I really don’t want Byrd to serve for 51 years just because he happens to come from a rock solid state that will never offer an alternative on <[whatever the issue is]>.
More turnover isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. It should be used more frequently, not less.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Why is that? Right now leadership serves for two years, and then is re-elected if the bloc wants him/her to continue. If the term limits were, say, 12 years, you could have 6 years in the House, and you could be House Leader for as many of those as you could be elected to by your peers.
In theory, sure. In theory you could become Speaker of the House as a freshman congressman. In practice, it takes many terms of experience before you can do that. Mike Johnson's an anomaly - no other modern Speaker has landed in the spot after only three terms in office.
What happens in practice is that changing the structure of legislative terms ends up changing those legislators' behavior. You always know, in advance, the date on which every leadership spot will become open. So it's almost never to your advantage to pick a fight, rather than wait until "your turn" - because unlike the present system, you're always guaranteed to get your turn.
The first times a "senior" occupies a leadership role, everyone knows that it's going to be vacant the very next Legislative term - which means that a "leadership designate" invariably gets picked from the folks that aren't being term limited out. No one wants to be caught flat-footed, so people start working out their deals and consolidating support for the replacement - and they're almost always from the next preceding class, because they've been there for four terms. And then when that person is picked, everyone knows they're leaving within a term - so they start looking at who might replace that person in four years, among the people who have served three terms. Etc.
What ends up happening pretty quickly is that the process congeals into classes. Leadership is always in their last term, leadership-in-waiting is always in their second-to-last-term....and no one below that even tries to fight that process, because it's much safer to just wait until the seats are going to be open rather than try to dislodge someone who's been there much longer than you.
More turnover isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. It should be used more frequently, not less.
Except it comes with problems. You end up significantly weakening the Legislature relative to the Executive, and you end up concentrating what power that remains into just the handful of members in leadership. That's what we've seen in Florida: the Executive rules supreme, and few people in the Legislature other than leadership matter - apart from the lobbyists and outside political factions that aren't term limited.
The reason the Executive's power increases is obvious - no matter who's current the leader in the Legislature, they'll be gone in two years. Without durability, you have less power - you can't make bargains that take more than the current Congress to implement, you can't threaten reprisals for more than the current session. People need only outwait you to try to get what they want from someone else.
And everything ends up being about Leadership, because there's no time or incentive to establish competing power structures. You could theoretically try to build a coalition in the chamber that would serve as a power base outside of leadership, but you just don't have the time to do that. Most of the people who currently have power are going to be term limited out in the next session or two, and by the time you get this set up you'll only have a session or two to use it. So no one invests any resources in really trying to do that.
