The desire for term limits is one of the political innovations that leaves me baffled. What is the logic, especially for conservatives or Republicans. In theory, Republicans favor any freedom that does not hurt the individual, and in theory conservatives favor things according to the Bible. Both should oppose term limits. No individual is hurt by term limits, and in the Bible, good kings, judges, and advisors should serve for life. Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, splits Israel by ignoring his father’s advisors (1 Kings 12 ff). 

In a more-secular context, if you have a good doctor, one who took years to learn the craft, would you get rid of him just because you’re afraid he’ll become comfortable? It’s insane personally, and worse to make a law forcing other people to do it. It suggests a paranoia of public will, the opposite of what a Democratic Republic stands for. These are laws to keep people from voting for the fellow they like! it’s like we believe ourselves to be addicts with a deadly addiction. It’s also like we believe policy is so simple and so corrupting that a beginner is always better than everyone with experience. As it happened, Rehoboam’s young councilors were more money-hungry than the old.

Protect me from making the same mistake thrice.

Michigan’s term limits are worse than most because ours are uncommonly short: 6 years for the house. 8 for the senate, 8 for governor. While I can accept an eight year  term limit for the governor, in theory he’s just an executor, I can see no basis for the short term limits on those serving in the MI house or senate. If we can’t eliminate these limits, we should at least extend them. Also I would not make the exclusion on any of these individuals life-long. If someone served in the senate say, then left and served as governor, why not let the fellow run again for senate?

behind bars  For those reading this in future decades, it’s funny because XI is president of China for life, something US presidents (Trump) can’t be. But they can be put in prison for life.

For the same reason, I’m not a fan of long, mandatory minimum prison sentences. It’s like we don’t trust our judges to be tough enough. If we don’t trust them, don’t elect them, or remove them. As it is, we have more people per-capita behind bars than any other nation on earth. We assume, I guess that we can’t pick a good judge, but have to make sure he or she isn’t a lenient rascal who’ll serve for life. But is that so bad? Is it better to force the judge to spit on everyone?

There are many problems with fair sentencing, but I’m inclined to say that extenuating circumstances are always relevant, and that the shortest sentence sufficient to prevent further crime is usually the best. If judges are rascals, then the way to deal with it is judicial review or un-election. As Cotton Mather said years after overseeing the Salem witch hunts: “It’s better that a hundred witches go free than that we kill a single innocent person”. With judges, as with voters, restricting choice by law seems proper only when the effect is to protect the individual, not when the effect is to increase his burden, or so it seems to me.

Robert E. Buxbaum, October 11, 2018.