Limiting Terms of Elected Officials
The article states that Hyde has been in the House of Representatives for the past 26 years, and bemoans the increasing interest in limiting terms of office.
I have shocking news for Hyde: Professional politicians are not what democracy is all about.
Hyde states, “People who advocate this proposal accept the logical fallacy that ‘new is better’ and must believe that elective office is the one vocation where experience is an obstacle to good performance.”
Wrong! What should be said is that long terms in office are obstacles to the distribution of power.
Good performances have always been found in the countless dictatorships that have plagued the world during the last few thousand years. Of far more importance in a democracy is the distribution of power, which tends to reduce corruption, and tends to create efforts aimed at the betterment of all people rather than just helping special interests.
He states: “A mandatory revolving door for elected officials would only strengthen the grip of the permanent bureaucracy.” This statement defies both fact and logic. We do not need “representatives for life” any more than we need “presidents for life.” Sunset laws for public offices will do a great deal towards reducing the corruption so prevalent today, and we should adopt them.
TOM KILLGROVE
Frazier Park
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
