The Gilmore Rule

I am not a big fan of the idea of term limits because they do not only limit a politician's time in office: they also limit the choices that voters have. If voters really want to keep electing the same people over and over again to the same offices, then I think they should be "allowed" to do that; it's their government, after all. Aristotle noted that monarchy could be best form of government in the unlikely situation that the most capable man around was the monarch; if the best men and women are already in office, it makes sense to elect them again so that they can continue to guide the government wisely. Although many budding democracies have sadly elected presidents who quickly turned into tyrannical "presidents for life," I actually think the division of powers in American government is more effective at preventing the rise of dictatorships than term limits can be. The only thing that prevents me from dismissing term limits out of hand is my extreme dislike for reelection campaigns. I loath them because they take someone elected into office away from their actual jobs and onto the campaign trail. It is beyond me how anyone could think it is a good thing for anyone in an important office to spend their time trying to be reelected instead of actively performing the duties of their office. Even if the time factor is ignored, the extra stress of running for office could in itself conceivably hinder an elected official's judgment and competency. Although I agree with the conventional wisdom that incumbents have an advantage just because they are well known, it remains true that even the most well-known incumbent must spend some of his time campaigning if there are any credible candidates running against him. Term limits would at least prevent some incumbent politicians from participating in a reelection campaign, so they cannot be all that bad! Also, not all term limits are created equal: there is one type of term limit that I am particularly impressed with that is currently practiced in Jim Gilmore's home state of Virginia.

There is probably not anything actually called the Gilmore Rule involved, but Virginia law certainly did prevent Mr. Gilmore from seeking reelection after he had served his first term as governor of Virginia. In fact, all Virginia governors are explicitly barred from serving consecutive terms of office. Only consecutive terms are not allowed; ex-governors can run for governor again after sitting out one or more terms. Although this type of term limit still limits voter choice, I think it is fairer than some absolute and arbitrary limit on the number of terms a person may serve. I would certainly prefer this type of term limit over the present, absolute term limit of two terms for American presidents, and I think it might be a good thing to see applied to other offices as well. Apart from the matter of restricting voters' choice, which is an awful serious matter, the biggest problem with term limits I can see is that they might make it more difficult for an agenda to be implemented over a long-term period because a given politician will not be able to hold onto an office indefinitely to preside over the implementation of his or her agenda. If the voters truly want that agenda to be implemented, however, they need only elect a candidate who is also committed to the same agenda -- that's certainly possible in theory, though the transfer of offices is still a disruptive process by its very nature.