Not siding one way or the other, that will definitely limit the amount of expertise that comes with a Congressman/Congresswoman.
Think about it, it takes at least six months for us to learn our jobs, they have to learn about hundreds of things ongoing in the government before they can make informed decisions. You then even rely more on lobbyists (or "experts") who at least generally know what they are talking about.
Point being, I think this issue is a hell of a lot more complex than it seems.
Lobbyist being experts is something I've never heard before. They are salesmen, do you want to get your nutrient information from a McDonald's commercial? It may save you time but isn't really helpful.
Though there is a distinction between corporate lobbying and e.g. the EFF: corporations lobby for their own interests, the EFF does it for everyone. Besides that, if company lobbying did not exist, the EFF wouldnt exist because there would be no one to work against. The EFF was specificly founded to defend the peoples interests against corporations.
You need to be more pedantic. The EFF is a 501(c)(3) organization, and that's a type of corporation.
If you want to outlaw lobbying by for-profit corporations, then they'll just create subsidiary lobbying organizations. The NRA is a 501(c)(4), which is also a tax exempt non-profit designation, and realistically it serves primarily as a lobbying group for gun manufacturers.
That's a fair point. Though while they may not be exclusively a lobbying front for gun manufacturers, I think it's still fair to say they serve that purpose.
If you ignore the highly politicized lobbyists, you'll find that expertise is one of the main things lobbyists provide to politicians.
"We know you don't have time to dig deep. Here is a summary of the research, and our recommendations based on it."
Edit: I also once had a fairly cynical view of lobbyists. But then some people I know went to work for lobby groups after they graduated. When I looked into the types of lobby groups they went to, they were fairly impressive. Things like advocating for homeless, advocating for people without health care, etc.
> Lobbyist being experts is something I've never heard before.
Lobbyists often are, and, whether or not they themselves are, are almost invariably supported by, domain experts.
> They are salesmen
Yeah, but they are salesmen who do the public policy equivalent of technical sales, and it's a field where selectivity is high because you are selling to a very small number of very high value customers.
Lobbyists will bring in the "expert" with necessary credentials who can "advice" on the finer points of legislation, give talking points etc. They might not directly project expertise
I am not sure they have the required expertise anyway, most of the elected politicians have zero understanding of tech for example, many of them never even used email, the woeful questioning of zukerberg showed how clueless they are.
Career bureaucrats are the ones who run many of hundred things that run the government. Politicians need to provide direction and reflect the will of the people. Hardly need to career politicians for that. Younger representation is critical to make sure the voice of youth is being heard.
Do you think any politician understands the needs of the millennial generation ? Any long term policy like say education enacted now is going to impact the future generations more than anyone else.
It's not like we're blindly considering something that has never been tried. California enacted term limits, and there were studies[1] as to the effect it had. Information as to some aspects of it is but a click or search away. Here's some highlights of the summary I linked to:
In both houses, committees now screen out fewer bills assigned to them and are more likely to see their work rewritten at later stages. The practice of“hijacking” Assembly bills—gutting their contents and amending them thoroughly in the Senate—has increased sharply. As a body, the Legislature is less likely to alter theGovernor’s Budget, and its own budget process neither encourages fiscal discipline nor links legislators’ requests to overall spending goals. In addition, legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly.
...legislators are learning more quickly than their precursors, but that frequent changes in the membership and leadership of legislative committees, especially in the Assembly, diminish their expertise in many important policy areas. Many committees lack the experience to weed out bad bills and to ensure that agencies are acting efficiently and in accordance with legislative intent.
That said, overall the summary finds that the effects of term limits were neither as good as proponents hoped or as bad as detractors feared.
I think it is, like most problems. I tend to favor the idea of term limits but while discussing this with a friend who used to work in politics, he made a good point I thought. His experience is that the staff change is the real problem in a political change. The ramp up time for a new staff is very long, the politician would not be able to get much done until the staff figures everything out, then it would be time to change again depending on the limit.
I've often thought each section of legislation should have a byline that lists every person who had a hand in drafting it since most legislation is now written by lobbyists and not the actual legislators.
For example, H.R. 5323, Derivatives Fairness Act drafted on behalf of CitiGroup.
2 terms in the Senate is 12 years. 4 terms in the House is 8 years. There will be plenty of knowledge transfer between junior and senior members in that time.
I would argue the amount of expertise will go up with term limits: people who still have fresh memories of living outside the government bubble can actually make a lot of difference.
Moreover, it works the other way round as well. If, say, a teacher returns back to school after a term in state senate, the school will get access to invaluable wealth of knowledge of government internals.
I would argue that congresspeople are not experts in general in most (all in some cases?) domains, and make generally totally uninformed decisions that are designed to pander to a political base.
And lobbyists aren't experts either, they're simply paid to bribe people to get a result.
> that will definitely limit the amount of expertise that comes with a Congressman/Congresswoman.
The expertise they have is in glad-handing, personally enriching themselves, and playing political games. They're certainly not subject matter experts in anything outside that realm. Term limits don't have to mean that we're losing out on this valuable "expertise", it could be something as simple as "retire at 65", you know, like everyone else in every other industry aspires to do.
==They're certainly not subject matter experts in anything outside that realm.==
Except many of them clearly are. Bill Foster worked as a particle physicist at Fermilab for 22 years [1]. Sean Casten started and sold an energy recycling company called Recycled Energy Development [2]. Those are two examples just from suburban Chicago. Try not to let political cynicism cloud reality.
How many? And I think it's particularly telling that the folks you managed to find are newbies to the political arena and not career politicians, a class of individuals that can only exist thanks to the absence of term limits. Also telling is that in Foster's case, his expertise is completely useless in a political context. Let me know when he gets around to drafting a major particle physics bill.
I'm not sure, I provided two examples to prove your assertion wrong. Surely, you can find more if you look.
== And I think it's particularly telling that the folks you managed to find are newbies to the political arena and not career politicians==
Can you name a career field where experience is considered a bad thing? Does your career have term limits, would people be more effective at it if they did? The free market seems to pay specialists more than generalists, due to higher perceived value.
Politics is the only place I have ever heard this argument. Foster was first elected in 2008, so he's hardly a "newbie".
==Also telling is that in Foster's case, his expertise is completely useless in a political context. Let me know when he gets around to drafting a major particle physics bill.==
Huh? The House holds the purse strings and decides funding on things like the Energy Department, which funds Fermilab, or NASA. I think he might have something to add in that arena.
You made a claim that lobbyists are not subject matter experts. Another commenter refuted that claim with counterexamples. Now you are moving the goalposts and demanding quantifiable data about how many lobbyists have expertise in some domain.
I think it's time for you to counter by defending your thesis, that lobbyists generally don't have domain expertise, instead of demanding increasingly more evidence.
Think about it, it takes at least six months for us to learn our jobs, they have to learn about hundreds of things ongoing in the government before they can make informed decisions. You then even rely more on lobbyists (or "experts") who at least generally know what they are talking about.
Point being, I think this issue is a hell of a lot more complex than it seems.