Term limits are for everybody.

Not everybody agrees. Some politicians think that term limits are aimed specifically at them. Some kind of personal vendetta, maybe.

And some critics contend that a certain group is particularly targeted — or in some way particularly suffers — from term limits. Now, I’m willing to concede that incumbents as a group are targeted by term limits. You can’t really term-limit incumbency unless, you know, you term-limit the incumbents.

But every kind of challenger can become an incumbent. Especially under term limits, which create so many new electoral opportunities. They’re an equal opportunity enabler.

Nevertheless, a recent story in the Washington Post declared in its title: “After Adopting Term Limits, States Lose Female Legislators.” It could also have been entitled, “After Adopting Term Limits, States Lose Male Legislators.” Because, again, everybody is term limited under term limits.

The reporter implies that term limits especially hurt women because, as political recruiters of women and others testify, women are less likely than men to run for office. It’s clear that family obligations and the like are the reason for that, however, not term limits.

What to do? The article doesn’t say outright that getting rid of term limits would “solve” the problem. But that’s what the reader is supposed to conclude. I think, as always, the real problem here is that political monopolists just don’t like to give up their political monopolies. Whether they’re men or women.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.