Sometimes I’ve hinted okay, more than hinted that what the critics of term limits really dislike is democracy as such. A Florida writer named Bill Cotterell thinks Floridians have it wrong about term limits. Even the title of his piece says the equivalent of “. . . Huh?”

The title is: “Term limits: a solution in search of a problem.” This title assumes that democracy proceeds very smoothly and fairly in the absence of term limits. In fact, without term limits, incumbents throughout the land enjoy a re-election rate in excess of 90 percent. In the U.S. House, that’s more like 99 percent. 99 percent is a lot closer to 100 percent than it is to some number signifying some kind of competition going on.

The extremely high reelection rate results not so much from the unfailing virtues of incumbents as from their overwhelming electoral advantages. Challengers don’t get to re-gerrymander the district to favor their party before the general election begins. Nor can they use the mails for free. Or throw taxpayer money at special interests. These are all perks of incumbency.

The result is not democracy it’s stasis. Real democracy is not static. It is not a pond into which no one ever tosses a pebble. It is competitive and it is messy. It requires more than one person to do the job. It requires wide participation and wide acquaintance with the issues of the day. It’s demanding. But then, civilization itself is no piece of cake. Come to think of it, life itself is something of a chore. You get what you put in.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.