George F. Will made the case for term limits quite well in his latest column for Real Clear Politics. It was sparked by Independent Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg’s announcement that he would seek a third term in office, this despite the fact that New Yorkers voted to enact a law that sets the limit on three terms years ago.

As Will pointed out in his column, term limits may be undemocratic in nature, for they do not allow citizens to vote for someone who served the maximum amount of terms, but they are an important part of the ‘liberal democratic’ system nonetheless.

George Will, conservative thinker and columnist

Bloomberg’s decision was supported by the New York Times, which argued in an editorial that the law setting term limits was enacted at a time when it was virtually impossible for rising stars in New York’s political scene to win elections. The politicians in power were ‘entranched.’ Therefore, a law had to be passed that would make it impossible for these politicians to remain in office, even if they wanted to.

Will quite rightfully responded by that defense of Mayor Bloomberg by pointing out that the reason politicians are not ‘entranched’ in office at this moment is that New Yorkers vote for aforementioned law. If this law would not have been enacted, the same politicians would still be in power. More, if the law is abandoned now, those currently in power will do what their predecessors did, for if there is one thing politicians do not like, it is to give up power.

The good mayor himself said that although he realizes now one is ‘indispensible,’ the current economic crisis alters reality to such a high degree that it would be irresponsible for him to step down. Action is required, action only he can undertake.

That means that Bloomberg does consider himself indispensible, which does not speak well of him. Only the most arrogant of the arrogant believe themselves to be indispensible in any country and city, let alone in New York, where talented youngsters are eagerly waiting for their teachers to resign so that they can fill the void they will leave behind.

These youngsters are most certainly able to do what their predecessors did, as Bloomberg should know.

Although Bloomberg and his supporters on this subject correctly argue that term limits are ‘undemocratic’ in nature, there is nothing wrong with that. Many other laws are ‘undemocratic’ in nature as well. In fact, ‘undemocratic’ provisions are exactly those provisions that protect the minority against the majority. This principle is one of the most important ones underlying Western civilization. We have learned, throughout history, that the majority should be protected against the minority and vice versa. The first amendment of the United States Constitution starts also off with words that are ‘undemocratic’ in nature: “Congress will pass no law.”

This means that even if the majority would want to pass a law about that specific subject, it would not be allowed to do so. That is most certainly ‘undemocratic,’ but it is also one of the main securities Americans have against the tyranny of the majority.

Term limits are a means to protect voters from overly ambitious politicians. The longer a politician remains in office, the more likely it is he will become ‘entranched.’ Furthermore, he will have put his own friends and allies in high positions, surround himself with them, reward them, and voters will be ignored. After all, competition will be made virtually nonexistent.

There are certainly arguments against term limits, but the pros outweigh the cons by far. Voters have to be protected against ‘entranched’ politicians, and the minority has to be protected against the majority. Term limits may be undemocratic, but they stimulate a constant influx of fresh blood into the political system, which enables fresh ideas to be implemented and young talented individuals to do better than their older colleagues – the former can learn from the latter’s mistakes.

Bloomberg’s motives may be honorable, but the consequences of his decision to break with the term limit may be disastrous for New Yorkers in the long run. Voters would be wise to keep that in mind when they go to the polls to vote for their new mayor.