Senator Dianne Feinstein's career was filled with firsts, including first woman mayor of San Francisco and one of two of the first women elected to the U.S. Senate from California.
RIP and condolences to the family. But yeah I agree. ll the seats need that. We need regular, young, honest, decent people running for office and tossing out the out of touch fossils that have sold out to too many favors and donations from giant corpos and billionaires.
Good luck finding honest decent people, seems like only the psychotic grifters are interested in politics. All the decent honest people run grassroots orgs it seems and they can’t get the funding to do politics or are interested in helping directly not in fighting dinosaurs on policy
Decent people want to solve problems. They may disagree on what is a problem and they may disagree on the solution but they at least have the intent to solve a problem when they see it. Unfortunately while politics SHOULD be about solving problems these days its primary purpose is playing power games.
It’s why so many fresh Representatives and even Senators start out with big plans and enthusiasm. They see a problem that they want to solve. It’s also why they are mostly ineffective. They arrive on The Hill and quickly realize that solving problems isn’t really what their peers want to do. So their either abandon their plans or start “going along to get along” and get co-opted into the game.
I’d say you hit the nail on the head. I’d love to be more active in politics, this next election I thought about trying to help organize some rallies or just work with the locals on setting up informational events.
Before this year, I didn’t have the time or money to do anything like that. If I didn’t live in the cheapest possible place, I’d still not have the money or time. To make it worse, running against conservative in the Midwest, especially places like Indiana, is a surefire way to just about waste your time.
Unironically this would help. The ones enforcing regulatory capture are the ones who have been in their positions the longest.
If the corporations have to constantly introduce themselves to the new politicians, it greatly increases the cost and lowers the lifetime value of the money they’re spending on lobbying.
It might help, but not in isolation, imo. I think there is value to both having new people with new ideas as well as having people with knowledge of how institutions work. If you have entirely new representatives every term, then everyone is learning things anew (from the corporate lobbyists who are their same jobs for every legislative session). If we did away with private money in politics and publicly funded campaigns, then I think the case for strict term limits is stronger
This had been implemented in some places, and it’s only caused corruption to go up and the quality of politicians to go down. Term limits aren’t the silver bullet we need, they’re actually bad.
I’m for term limits but one term is a bit short. Like with any job, it takes some time to really learn the way the system works and to be effective in the position.
RIP and condolences to the family. But yeah I agree. ll the seats need that. We need regular, young, honest, decent people running for office and tossing out the out of touch fossils that have sold out to too many favors and donations from giant corpos and billionaires.
Good luck finding honest decent people, seems like only the psychotic grifters are interested in politics. All the decent honest people run grassroots orgs it seems and they can’t get the funding to do politics or are interested in helping directly not in fighting dinosaurs on policy
Decent people want to solve problems. They may disagree on what is a problem and they may disagree on the solution but they at least have the intent to solve a problem when they see it. Unfortunately while politics SHOULD be about solving problems these days its primary purpose is playing power games.
It’s why so many fresh Representatives and even Senators start out with big plans and enthusiasm. They see a problem that they want to solve. It’s also why they are mostly ineffective. They arrive on The Hill and quickly realize that solving problems isn’t really what their peers want to do. So their either abandon their plans or start “going along to get along” and get co-opted into the game.
I’d say you hit the nail on the head. I’d love to be more active in politics, this next election I thought about trying to help organize some rallies or just work with the locals on setting up informational events.
Before this year, I didn’t have the time or money to do anything like that. If I didn’t live in the cheapest possible place, I’d still not have the money or time. To make it worse, running against conservative in the Midwest, especially places like Indiana, is a surefire way to just about waste your time.
We should only allow the people who don’t want to be in politics to be in politics lol
Limit every office to one term. Problem solved.
sets the revolving door to max speed
Look y’all, i fixed regulatory capture!
Did you really just call a 90 year old woman who was in the Senate for 31 years a “revolving door”
Unironically this would help. The ones enforcing regulatory capture are the ones who have been in their positions the longest.
If the corporations have to constantly introduce themselves to the new politicians, it greatly increases the cost and lowers the lifetime value of the money they’re spending on lobbying.
It might help, but not in isolation, imo. I think there is value to both having new people with new ideas as well as having people with knowledge of how institutions work. If you have entirely new representatives every term, then everyone is learning things anew (from the corporate lobbyists who are their same jobs for every legislative session). If we did away with private money in politics and publicly funded campaigns, then I think the case for strict term limits is stronger
I mean obviously the best solution is to remove private money entirely. It’s disgustingly biased against the majority of citizens.
A one term limit is silly, for the reason you mention. But 3-4 seems plenty to get a mix of seasoned representatives and new ideas.
This had been implemented in some places, and it’s only caused corruption to go up and the quality of politicians to go down. Term limits aren’t the silver bullet we need, they’re actually bad.
Interesting, you have any examples of where they’ve tried this?
Truthfully? No. It’s something I’ve heard many times but that’s it.
I’m for term limits but one term is a bit short. Like with any job, it takes some time to really learn the way the system works and to be effective in the position.
We limited the presidency to two terms. As a thought experiment, do you think Trump could have beaten Obama?
Nope. I also don’t think trump could have beaten clinton prior to Obama. I think trump was a reaction to Obama.
New problems created though.