It really does seem a bit odd that a mayor with a 67 percent approval rating should be forced from office because of a term limits law. I suppose I understand the theory that presidential-level term limits serve as a check on tyranny, but there doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to worry about that at the local level of government.
« Pride | Main | A Jesse Helms Anecdote »
Term Limits
07 Jul 2008 02:11 pm
Comments (51)
It's obviousl that you're new in town. If you were here when "Mayor for Life" Marion Barry was running things, you might have a different view.
It's not about tyranny, it's about executive consolidation of power. This is particularly more dangerous at the local level, where the public-private relationships that keep society's wheels greased are made directly, with less oversight, and thus can turn into cronyism much more quickly.
tyranny...doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to worry about that at the local level of government.
IIRC, New York City voters passed their term-limits law by popular vote in 1993, when the unpopular David Dinkins was up for reelection.
You mean aside from the Daley machine?
If you don't believe that local tyranny exists, I have two words: Frank Rizzo.
San Antonio has the most moronic term limits restrictions in the nation. Two, two-year terms and you're out. That goes for the mayor and the City Council members. So we have a complete turnover of our city government every four years, thus we never have the benefit of experience, no institutional memory, and a city that is essentially run by unelected city staffers.
They have scheduled another vote this fall to try and extend the term limits to four, two-year terms, but there is no guarantee that it will get past the CAVE people. (Citizens Against Virtually Everything).
I have nothing against Daley as a mayor, but Chicago certainly shows how politics can atrophy in a city without term limits. And worse than his staying on, the mayor appoints replacement alderman who are then routinely reelected in a one-party system with strong machines. So the result is that Daley has picked most of the people who are supposed to act as a check on him.
In general it does seem that power consolidates even better at the local level than the national level. Only one president ever abused the two term model before the amendment, and probably only one could have been elected to a third term after it. But at the local level it does seem to matter.
I don't think it has anything to do with tyranny. Term limits are just very difficult for sitting politicians to oppose. Even Bloomberg would get some tarnish on him if he tried to leverage his popularity into a third/fourth/fifth term (though he could probably pull it off). If he did manage it, the downsides are enormous. Every local pol plus the governor and the state legislature would be on his ass as soon as the lean times came. Better to run for governor.
Doesn't "local" in this case mean in charge of approximately eight million people? New York has a bigger population than a lot of countries.
Petty tyranny is tyranny nonetheless.
At any level of government, the consolidation of power in a narrow circle for a long period of time can be harmful. Cronyism and machine politics have afflicted nearly all big cities at one point or another.
see Frank Hague, political career of, for a good look at "local tyranny".
I think term limits are necessary for executives, be they local or national. It's a check on corrupt machines controlling executive power. The example above of Marion Berry works well here. He's a one man argument for term limits. I think term limiting legislatures is a mistake (or at least make the term limits much more generous and allow members to serve 15-20 years) as they don't have as tight a control over the levers of power themselves.
What does it say about New Yorkers that Bloomberg has a 67% popularity rating? Ye gods.
Lon who you thinking would have won that third Presidential term? Reagan or Clinton? Not sure Dukakis or W. could have beat them but also not sure they would have been the opponent if there were no 22nd. There is a counterfactual for you how does 1988 or 2000 play without term limits.
For starters, political machines have historically been on the local level.
Also, term limits (unexpectedly) prompt politicians to enact risky or unpopular policies. In term-limited systems, you get much more rapid evolution of government (as opposed to, say, the US Congress).
I can understand the term limits on mayor, as there really is a societal interest in making sure the person in charge is changed from time to time, but the eight year term limit on city council is just ridiculous. How can the city council ever effectively compete with the mayor if it is constantly filled with newbies? While I suppose it does mean that there are constantly positions opening for those who want to get involved in politics, the lack of institutional memory and specialization really hurts the ability to get important things done.
I'm definitely for the federal model - reasonable term limits for executive officers, unlimited terms for legislators, and life tenure for judges.
8 years of Ray Nagin is plenty for me, thanks.
Any reason we can't just repeal the term limits law?
Chicagoans seem to love just keeping Daley in charge. We could do the same with Bloomie.
I am actually pretty worried about what will happen to my beloved NYC when Bloomberg's term is up.
We were blessed to have such a calm, no nonsense leader through seriously tumultuous years. One could imagine a less organized executive losing control completely after 9/11, with crime skyrocketing due to so much NYPD focus on anti-terrorism. Not to mention fiscal crises that kept getting worse, not better after some necessary bitter medicine.
To avoid "Tyranny at the local level," maybe there should be an interim referendum on whether a candidate is even allowed to run again. A bit like a parliamentary vote of confidence.
Anyway, here's hoping a retired Bloomberg will be given a big problem to solve by an Obama administration. I hear McCain likes him too ;-)
I am actually pretty worried about what will happen to my beloved NYC when Bloomberg's term is up.
We were blessed to have such a calm, no nonsense leader through seriously tumultuous years. One could imagine a less organized executive losing control completely after 9/11, with crime skyrocketing due to so much NYPD focus on anti-terrorism. Not to mention fiscal crises that kept getting worse, not better after some necessary bitter medicine.
To avoid "Tyranny at the local level," maybe there should be an interim referendum on whether a candidate is even allowed to run again. A bit like a parliamentary vote of confidence.
Anyway, here's hoping a retired Bloomberg will be given a big problem to solve by an Obama administration. I hear McCain likes him too ;-)
Felipe,
I meant Reagan. I suspect that even some Clinton supporters would have rebelled against a third Clinton term. Although it is possible that conservative Clinton derangement could have won him a third term. The bizarreness of anti-Clinton sentiment seems to have been the thing that most boosted his popularity. And I say that as a supporter.
Reagan could have won a third term in a walk. Although it is not clear he could have kept his mental faculties through that third term.
There's always this great people first, good government solution from the geniuses in Louisville KY. Their popular smooth-talking mayor got term-limited. So they solved the problem by merging the city and county into a new entity, so he could be mayor or whatever of that. That's what wrong with electing politicians. Voters are idiots. They care more about personalities than policies. So of course the right answer is to spend untold millions and ruin everything that ever worked right just to keep this attractive guy in office.
Not to pile on, but the post displays appalling ignorance of what happens in municipal government, which is particularly unfortunate because you (Matt Y.) seem heavily invested in important decisions, like land use, that are made almost exclusively at the local level.
I am actually pretty worried about what will happen to my beloved NYC when Bloomberg's term is up.
We were blessed to have such a calm, no nonsense leader through seriously tumultuous years. One could imagine a less organized executive losing control completely after 9/11, with crime skyrocketing due to so much NYPD focus on anti-terrorism. Not to mention fiscal crises that kept getting worse, not better after some necessary bitter medicine.
To avoid "Tyranny at the local level," maybe there should be an interim referendum on whether a candidate is even allowed to run again. A bit like a parliamentary vote of confidence.
Anyway, here's hoping a retired Bloomberg will be given a big problem to solve by an Obama administration. I hear McCain likes him too ;-)
I am actually pretty worried about what will happen to my beloved NYC when Bloomberg's term is up.
We were blessed to have such a calm, no nonsense leader through seriously tumultuous years. One could imagine a less organized executive losing control completely after 9/11, with crime skyrocketing due to so much NYPD focus on anti-terrorism. Not to mention fiscal crises that kept getting worse, not better after some necessary bitter medicine.
To avoid "Tyranny at the local level," maybe there should be an interim referendum on whether a candidate is even allowed to run again. A bit like a parliamentary vote of confidence.
Anyway, here's hoping a retired Bloomberg will be given a big problem to solve by an Obama administration. I hear McCain likes him too ;-)
Vanya, what does it say about you that you offer no criticism but just expect everyone to nod and think, "Yes, Vanya right, Bloomberg awful"?
I'm a little shocked at the naivete of Matt's post but I see it has been well rebutted.
Two reasons:
1) Richard J. Daley.
2) Richard M. Daley.
In the last 53 years, more than 40 years have seen a Richard Daley as mayor of Chicago, with no end in sight.
I've voted for the younger Daley, I'll confess, but it's only because he's muscled any qualified opposition out of any reasonable position of power where they could threaten his municipal omnipotence. There aren't any reasonable Republicans in this town (which is usually a bonus), and all the Democrats have had to curry his favor in order to move up the ladder.
Oh, I'm sorry, I seem to have stumbled into the antidemocracy room.
Don't we have term limits already, called "elections"?
What can term limits be except an attempt to subvert the will of the electorate? If you want the guy out of office, oppose him with a better candidate. But if he keeps winning elections, clearly the people think he's the guy for the job.
NYC also has a population more than a dozen times greater than some states (I'm looking at you, Wyoming), so it's a little less "local" than your average mom & pop town.
Exactly. Two great reasons for term limits: Daleys I & II.
In the last decade or more, there has been no meaningful opposition here in Chicago and often, little meaningful politics beyond what the mayor says or desires.
Whatever there is to like about Bloomberg (and I think are reasons) there's no reason to simply cast aside municipal term limits. If he's so great, allow him to take a term off and run again.
But to state term limits aren't needed because a current Mayor isn't so bad, well that's truly a backwards way to approach an issue.
It's not so much protection against tyranny at the local level, but petty corruption, consolidation of power and the amplified benefits of incumbency. The smaller the jurisdiction, the greater the chances of one party rule and a disengaged electorate.
This can have strong implications for regional issues like mass transit. In Philadelphia, where I live, you have entrenched Democratic machine politics in the city proper, and in the suburbs a patchwork of township commissioners who typically gained office by being endorsed by the local GOP decades ago and haven't seen serious opposition since. Add in differing sources of gravity - city pols gain the most favor by providing services, suburban pols by keeping taxes low, and both by placating NIMBYism - and it's a recipe for gridlock. SEPTA, the regional transit authority, is reduced to having to threaten shutdowns and draconian fare hikes every year just to make its operating budget. Even the most modest expansion of transit has long been considered a naive pipe dream around here.
Recently there's been a little bit of daylight, with a reformist city mayor, suburbs trending Democratic, and of course gas prices, but as far as I can tell Philly is still way behind the curve on transit compared to other big cities around the country.
"Reagan could have won a third term in a walk. Although it is not clear he could have kept his mental faculties through that third term."
It is likely he didn't keep them through the second. His Alzheimers was obvious and significant just months after he left office.
It's not so much protection against tyranny at the local level, but petty corruption, consolidation of power and the amplified benefits of incumbency. The smaller the jurisdiction, the greater the chances of one party rule and a disengaged electorate.
This can have strong implications for regional issues like mass transit. In Philadelphia, where I live, you have entrenched Democratic machine politics in the city proper, and in the suburbs a patchwork of township commissioners who typically gained office by being endorsed by the local GOP decades ago and haven't seen serious opposition since. Add in differing sources of gravity - city pols gain the most favor by providing services, suburban pols by keeping taxes low, and both by placating NIMBYism - and it's a recipe for gridlock. SEPTA, the regional transit authority, is reduced to having to threaten shutdowns and draconian fare hikes every year just to make its operating budget. Even the most modest expansion of transit has long been considered a naive pipe dream around here.
Recently there's been a little bit of daylight, with a reformist city mayor, suburbs trending Democratic, and of course gas prices, but as far as I can tell Philly is still way behind the curve on transit compared to other big cities around the country.
Anyone who has seen the Democratic party in action at a (larger) local level - such as in San Francisco or Chicago - has seen serious local corruption and abuse of power.
Local tyranny and patronage are not rare unfortunately.
We do have elections, but we have people in power who continually try to subvert them one way or another.
Matt, I would have to disagree with your lack of concern about local level corruption. By "local" I think you include major U.S. cities like Chicago and New York, both of which have the specters of Tweed and Daley hanging over their respective histories. Local governmental tyranny does have obvious historical precedent.
Although I think the term limits in NYC should probably be extended a bit longer, I think, at least within the City Council, they've done some good. Both of the last two speakers had to make some internal rule concessions in order to capture the post. The rules were designed to limit the control the speaker has over the legislative agenda and give committees more independence. I admit these rule changes have yet to achieve their goal in limiting the speaker's power. However, I doubt these concessions would have occurred without term limits. Many of the incoming group of potential councilmembers are well aware of these shortcomings in the council rules and may well extract even more concessions from the next speaker.
Matt, I would have to disagree with your lack of concern about local level corruption. By "local" I think you include major U.S. cities like Chicago and New York, both of which have the specters of Tweed and Daley hanging over their respective histories. Local governmental tyranny does have obvious historical precedent.
Although I think the term limits in NYC should probably be extended a bit longer, I think, at least within the City Council, they've done some good. Both of the last two speakers had to make some internal rule concessions in order to capture the post. The rules were designed to limit the control the speaker has over the legislative agenda and give committees more independence. I admit these rule changes have yet to achieve their goal in limiting the speaker's power. However, I doubt these concessions would have occurred without term limits. Many of the incoming group of potential councilmembers are well aware of these shortcomings in the council rules and may well extract even more concessions from the next speaker.
Local politicians are often the most corrupt, and have the most leeway to do whatever they want. My town supervisor's wife was caught stealing from OTB a few years ago. What did they do with her? Promoted her to keep her away from the money. I doubt he's any more honest, but no one will really know until after he leaves office, but the fools here keep on reelecting him.
Prog-reformer bullshit just parrots GOP frames. You all willingly guzzle the idea that strong Democratic organizations are inherently corrupt without challenging the class warfare and racism that's being sold.
Not one of you good progressives points out the terminal dysfunction of longtime GOP strongholds like Orange County CA or DuPage IL.
Term limits are a rather coarse tool, throwing out the good with the bad, and in some cases (such as in some state legislatures) guaranteeing that there are no truly experienced voices around. I can't see, for example, that California was run any better after Willie Brown left, even though he was not exactly (*ahem*) Mr. Clean.
Seems like building in constitutional provisions for meaningful audit and open government at every level would be more useful than just throwing the bums out every so often.
I too am uncomfortable with term limits. The corruption just switches from individual power centers to party or machine power centers. Individuals can be flushed out when the face reelection. Parties...not so much.
Note: If NYC proposed a 'you must be an honest 5'6" to be Mayor' it would be oh-so-wrong but I'd support it based on my opinion of Bloomberg. He's a decent man but he has no use for the opinions of the people -- a problem in a democracy.
So I guess I'm the only guy arguing for Daley as an example of why we should NOT have term limits, huh?
Do the rest of you realize how much better of a city Chicago is now than when the current Daley took office in 1989?
He's a lot different than his dad, he still wields control but it's a bit less of a machine. He's a progressive, as least as progressive as one will get in Chicago. And the place just works with him running the show, whereas it was completely dysfunctional (see: "Beirut by the Lake") before.
Reagan was old and obviously losing it. Even Dave Barry was aware of it, and he mostly wrote about exploding livestock at the time. If Gore could win in 2000, Clinton definitely would have. Although the second intifadah might have hurt him in Florida.
Hustler, I think you've imbibed a bit too much pro-Democratic kool-aid yourself. Here in Philadelphia, the Democratic ogliarchy drastically exacerbated the problems of class and race and the sizable problems stemming from the neglect of the state and federal government. It wasn't until Ed Rendell came in that years of mismanagement and corruption began to be reversed, although we had a reversion to old form under the last administration.
I'm not saying that a Republican government would be better. I'm just pointing out what's obvious: that the one-party politics found in many major cities are bad for those cities, regardless of which party it is.
Tyranny isn't the only possible corruption of a well-functioning political process, Matt. The advantage of long incumbency in a local machine can make a real challenge (and thus a contest on the merits of candidates and ideas) next to impossible.
What about L.A.'s own Sam Yorty? Give him a little respect when it comes to local tyrants.
Yeah, between Reagan and Clinton, only Clinton would likely have run for a third term. Reagan was old and although he was popular, I doubt he would actually have tried for a third term.
Really, the only other cases in which presidents might have sought a third-term post FDR are other counterfactuals -- i.e. if JFK hadn't been assassinated or had Ford won in '76. And, honestly, most presidents are not popular enough after two terms to run for a third -- they're often tired and even if their popularity picks up at the very end, they usually are worn out.
Comments closed July 21, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
There is a such thing as local tyranny. I doubt you felt this way when Rudy was the popular, successful mayor being forced out due to term limits.
Posted by Mo | July 7, 2008 2:19 PM