Where’s the Beef ? It’s With Us : Term Limits: We elect the bums, then seek some way to keep ourselves from doing so.

Propositions 131 and 140, both of which impose limits on the number of terms elected officials may hold office, will almost certainly be approved, perhaps overwhelmingly. Experts keep telling us that the popularity of term limits represents the frustration of the people with politicians--that people have just plain had it with incumbents.

Experts are giving too much credit to voters. Let’s recognize term limits for what they are--the people protecting themselves from themselves. Term limits indicate voter frustration with voters who do not care about politics and don’t pay attention. Our flirtation and fascination with limits will improve nothing. When the dust settles, the problems now present in politics will remain.

In other systems, it would be possible to view a movement toward term limits as a sign of voter disgust with officials. Let’s say that we had lived for years under a system where our officials took office based upon birth and could stay in office as long as they thought it was fun. Indeed, other systems presume that these rulers, above the fray of electoral politics, will best know what is good for us and will act with our interests in mind. After a while, we might find that officials need to be accountable to serve us best. A movement toward limits might fairly reflect discontent.

Of course, we do get to vote. Our system presumes that public officials will be more effective if they are accountable. If we think an elected official has become a problem, lacks a sense of accountability, has become arrogant or is ineffective, we get to throw him or her out. If we think people should not be in office after two terms, we may reject them after two terms.

But we do not do any of this. Rather, we continue to elect without hesitation whoever has “incumbent” as his or her ballot designation. We presume that the challenger is a fringe lunatic. We complain about incumbents, and then we vote for our incumbent. Willie Brown and David Roberti, like all other members of the Legislature, are reelected to office freely and knowingly.

It is argued that the problem is the way the districts are designed. Incumbents cannot lose. Reapportionment is the answer. This also misses the point. No matter how the districts are created, these “demons” must receive a majority vote of a large population mass. And don’t forget--the recent efforts at reapportionment reform were soundly rejected by voters.

Term limits are the political equivalent of the “cement diet” in which the jaws are glued shut. To vote for a term limit is to say “I need help; I can’t control myself; if not stopped I will do something crazy--perhaps even vote for Willie Brown.”

Term limits may make you feel good. They may make you feel that you are taking radical steps to settle a score with those bums in Sacramento. But they are your bums. You keep electing them. No one forces you to do that. The problem is not Willie Brown or David Roberti or incumbents. If you have a beef, it is properly with yourself.