Letter: Term limits for officeholders defy rationality

Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2001 | 8:54 a.m.

I agree with Brian Greenspun's Oct. 12 column, "We won't be bought." I especially agree with his comments relating to term limits, and his use of the word "rationality," which can't be left out of any discussion regarding this subject.

Take for example Bill Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. They are two politicians, one from each major party, each with similar flaws in their private lives, and both with outstanding track records in public office. They are both highly competent, capable leaders. They both inspire confidence and a level of comfort when they're in charge due to their proven abilities. In both their cases, they would probably win re-election if they weren't forbidden from running again because of term-limit laws.

Proponents of term limits believe that if you're brilliant, experienced and multi-talented you're also out, whether the people still want you in or not. Term limits make no common sense, but worse, they take away voters' choices.

Mr. Greenspun mentions that Giuliani is the man most New Yorkers want for their mayor, yet they can't have him. Whether in New York or in Nevada, why should voters be denied the opportunity to vote for the candidate they'd most prefer to represent them? How many other politicians stand out for their successes in office the way that these two do?

Why should politicians with great accomplishments -- like Giuliani's improvement of New York City and his handling of the World Trade Center disaster, and Clinton's unprecedented and outstanding economy -- be forced to leave office before the voters want them to?

Where's the rationality in any of that?

JOYCE SEGAL