Maybe. If I were being serious about this, I’d look at whether Presidents were significantly different in their second terms compared to their first, and whether the difference (if any) seemed generally an improvement or a deterioration. I’d also look at how term limits play out generally.
How much of the apparent nimcompoopery of presidents is actually a result of their choices being constrained while in office?
I think that is a lot of it. But there is a related bit too: even when the candidate makes the rational choice (against tariffs for example) they have to frame their choice in a way that minimizes the political cost they pay to the people who think you can run a 1st world economy by forcing the 3rd world jobs to stay here. So even when they make the right choices, they still have to sound like idiots to keep their political reserves from depleting.
If some fraction of the problem is a result of the desire to be re-elected, should we be pushing for only letting them have one term?
The thing we lose is the value of real expertise.
I think the single best chance California State government has to pull out of its involvency dive are the actions of current Governor Jerry Brown. Brown was governor before, but long enough ago that it was before term limits were in place for the office. I think if one looks at something like what is happening to Greece as part of the counterfactual that could be happening in California, one has to be glad Brown is here.
In some sense, I would say Brown is the Steve Jobs of state government. A wacky genius with a wierd twist on the necessary talents and motivations that allow the possibility of a great result. Of course, in the case of California, surviving with workable schools and not descending into criminal chaos because the police and courts are cut too deeply may be Brown’s much more under-the-radar iPhone.
How much of the apparent nimcompoopery of presidents is actually a result of their choices being constrained while in office?
If some fraction of the problem is a result of the desire to be re-elected, should we be pushing for only letting them have one term?
Is voting at all some variant of the dust-speck problem?
You want to free up your presidents from the corrupting influence of democracy?
Maybe. If I were being serious about this, I’d look at whether Presidents were significantly different in their second terms compared to their first, and whether the difference (if any) seemed generally an improvement or a deterioration. I’d also look at how term limits play out generally.
I think that is a lot of it. But there is a related bit too: even when the candidate makes the rational choice (against tariffs for example) they have to frame their choice in a way that minimizes the political cost they pay to the people who think you can run a 1st world economy by forcing the 3rd world jobs to stay here. So even when they make the right choices, they still have to sound like idiots to keep their political reserves from depleting.
The thing we lose is the value of real expertise.
I think the single best chance California State government has to pull out of its involvency dive are the actions of current Governor Jerry Brown. Brown was governor before, but long enough ago that it was before term limits were in place for the office. I think if one looks at something like what is happening to Greece as part of the counterfactual that could be happening in California, one has to be glad Brown is here.
In some sense, I would say Brown is the Steve Jobs of state government. A wacky genius with a wierd twist on the necessary talents and motivations that allow the possibility of a great result. Of course, in the case of California, surviving with workable schools and not descending into criminal chaos because the police and courts are cut too deeply may be Brown’s much more under-the-radar iPhone.