As prompted by The Hamiltonian...

Given that there has been activity discussing the notion of 'term limits' over at Teresa & Co's blog, most recently a comment by Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr and a 'Perspectives Virtual Panel', I'd been ruminating on an analogy predicated on food. On eating. On the idea that, in a nutshell, that term limits are as evolved a way to deal with voters not getting what they want at City Hall as removing all food in the house is to someone with an eating disorder. (Yeah, I know that analogy works, but I've used it for so long in other situations that it feels stale to me.)

And then I remembered seeing this on facebook:

Yeah, it's tad riské. A little off-colour, maybe controversial... But it's also a wonderfully effective salvo. 

I find some rather glaring similarities between the logic (and high dudgeon) expressed against fast food joints and how pro-term limits commenters frame their arguments. Just as I feel the backdrop for both discussions is the same:

Personal responsibility. 

No, it's not always 'convenient'. No, it's often 'not fun'. And yes, it requires some discipline, some wisdom, and being able to see the 'bigger picture'. 

I rarely gravitate towards the simple solution. I regularly find more honour in stepping back and looking at 'the reasons behind the reasons'. 

You're overweight and out-of-shape? 'Cook fresh food. Be active. Have fun.'

Have a thing about 'career politicians'? Then consider putting your energies into getting more people engaged, invested in their own governance, so informed opinions at the ballot box become the default. (But then, this is no guarantee that a qualified incumbent isn't going to be returned again and again and again. So if the situation continues to irk, why not consider putting your money where your mouth is, and throw your hat into the ring...?)

Wow; from the questionable to the philosophical, all in one post. 

M Adrian Brassington