Four More Years?
Oct. 2nd, 2008 01:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sdelmonteIt's a rare post about politics. Local politics. Read at your own risk.
I don't like term limit laws. I feel that by depriving voters of the choice of whether to re-elect someone, these laws are anti-democratic. I understand that sometimes the only way that some of the worse elected officials ever leave office is by being forced out this way, but I see it as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Imagine if FDR had been forced out in 1940. And while there are times I am glad to have had term limits - Giuliani would no doubt have been mayor at least another four years, and a third term by Reagan would have led to a terrible situation as his Alzheimer's emerged - I'd rather have the option of keeping someone who's done a good job.
And I like Mayor Bloomberg. He's done a very good job, he is one of a tiny number of elected officials who really does understand the underpinnings of the economy, and we really could use him at the helm longer as NYC will certainly struggle no matter what else happened with the current crisis.
But like it or not, the people of New York City voted in favor of term limits. Twice. For Bloomberg, no matter how good he thinks his intentions are, to say "you should amend the law for me because it's a crisis," is demonstrating the sort of arrogance that term limits laws are supposed to fight. At the very least, the people should be allowed to vote on whether the law should be amended, as opposed to letting the City Council do this. (The City Council, naturally, has already considered ways to chuck the law entirely, even though this would be the most obvious case of conflict of interest I could name.) To defy the will of the voters, no matter the crisis, is as anti-democratic as term limits in the first place.
Of course, if Bloomberg does get some sort of exemption, the voters will have their say the old-fashioned way. That is, they could re-elect him despite his arrogance and because he might very well be the only man in the city for the mess. Or they could tell him that no man is above the law, even now.
The funny thing is that I found an op-ed by the man who single-handedly bankrolled the pro-term limit campaign, and he actually supports giving Bloomberg a waiver, if nothing else proving that "I support term limits" can really mean "I support term limits on people I don't like." Maybe this whole situation will remind voters that it's not a good idea to kick out the good ones on the rare occasions we find them.
And for the record, while I think that Bloomberg probably does deserve to be booted out for this display of arrogance, at this point I don't think there is anyone I want to see in the job instead. I suspect he's counting on that, counting on other voters like me who will endure this attempted sleight of hand because it might be a good thing. We will see.
Assuming he really can circumvent the term limit law.
I don't like term limit laws. I feel that by depriving voters of the choice of whether to re-elect someone, these laws are anti-democratic. I understand that sometimes the only way that some of the worse elected officials ever leave office is by being forced out this way, but I see it as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Imagine if FDR had been forced out in 1940. And while there are times I am glad to have had term limits - Giuliani would no doubt have been mayor at least another four years, and a third term by Reagan would have led to a terrible situation as his Alzheimer's emerged - I'd rather have the option of keeping someone who's done a good job.
And I like Mayor Bloomberg. He's done a very good job, he is one of a tiny number of elected officials who really does understand the underpinnings of the economy, and we really could use him at the helm longer as NYC will certainly struggle no matter what else happened with the current crisis.
But like it or not, the people of New York City voted in favor of term limits. Twice. For Bloomberg, no matter how good he thinks his intentions are, to say "you should amend the law for me because it's a crisis," is demonstrating the sort of arrogance that term limits laws are supposed to fight. At the very least, the people should be allowed to vote on whether the law should be amended, as opposed to letting the City Council do this. (The City Council, naturally, has already considered ways to chuck the law entirely, even though this would be the most obvious case of conflict of interest I could name.) To defy the will of the voters, no matter the crisis, is as anti-democratic as term limits in the first place.
Of course, if Bloomberg does get some sort of exemption, the voters will have their say the old-fashioned way. That is, they could re-elect him despite his arrogance and because he might very well be the only man in the city for the mess. Or they could tell him that no man is above the law, even now.
The funny thing is that I found an op-ed by the man who single-handedly bankrolled the pro-term limit campaign, and he actually supports giving Bloomberg a waiver, if nothing else proving that "I support term limits" can really mean "I support term limits on people I don't like." Maybe this whole situation will remind voters that it's not a good idea to kick out the good ones on the rare occasions we find them.
And for the record, while I think that Bloomberg probably does deserve to be booted out for this display of arrogance, at this point I don't think there is anyone I want to see in the job instead. I suspect he's counting on that, counting on other voters like me who will endure this attempted sleight of hand because it might be a good thing. We will see.
Assuming he really can circumvent the term limit law.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: Oct. 2nd, 2008 05:41 pm (UTC)I agree with the letter writer in the NY Times who suggested a special election devoted to the question, funded by the people who want the question revoted, before Bloomberg (or anyone else) gets to run for re-election.
(no subject)
Date: Oct. 2nd, 2008 06:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: Oct. 2nd, 2008 08:57 pm (UTC)