BLOOMBERG'S TERM LIMIT EXTENSION.

Mr. Trend doesn't like the New York City Council's decision to permit Michael Bloomberg to run for a third term. I'm not really persuaded by the arguments against, however. A couple points:

• Term limits (especially term limits this short) seem, for the reasons Dana cites, highly unlikely to have progressive implications over the long term. Obviously, this isn't true in every individual case (imposing term limits on congressional committees in the 40s and 50s would have had progressive effects), but, in general, diminishing expertise and involuntarily retiring popular, effective leaders is not likely to enhance the cause of good progressive government. If Bloomberg has to benefit to get rid of a bad policy I can live with that, especially since it's not clear to what extent the alternatives would do a better job.
• I would give arguments that prior referenda represent some sacred Will of the People that shouldn't be amended by mere elected officials exactly the same weight I would give them when Rick Warren makes them about Prop 8: none whatsoever. This is a representative democracy; so long as the legislation is otherwise constitutionally valid I don't think rules created by referenda require any special deference beyond their rightness on the merits.

The bottom line for me is this: talk about a supposed "deep contempt for democracy"aside, Bloomberg actually has to run for re-election; he's not being re-appointed to a third term. If the term limit extension is truly a high priority for New York voters and they strongly oppose it, they're free to vote him (and the councilors that supported the extension) out of office. If the voters prefer Bloomberg to remain in office -- whether because they support the extension or because they see the issue as trivial -- I see no good democratic argument for why they shouldn't be allowed to have their way.

--Scott Lemieux