The only reason we have those nice modern things like phones and the internet is specialisation; it makes it possible for people to pursue things other than basic needs to survive. Sadly, that also means that people can pursue things that many people might find useless or repulsive, like being a professional liar as some 'full-time politicians' seem to be called by the various journalistic outlets. (let alone the opinionated internet - look, it's us!)
If we were to leave out the 'politician' and just say "person assigned by people who are busy doing other things, to govern those people that choose them". The politician part that would normally be in there would ideally only be scoped to the candidate phase of things and the interaction between different governing persons/positions to get stuff done. If you put it that way, it suddenly makes much more sense to have someone do a governing job full time as you'd want such a person to actually get stuff done.
It seems you'd be ok with a lot of administrators of the public good who do it as a job and a few politicians who do it on the side.
I now think elected politicians should be full time, full paid, professional service workers, with fully staffed offices.
Before, I was for term limits. Until I started lobbying on my pet issue. Watching the grizzled, wily bureaucrats run circles around the part-time amateur politicians was illuminating. Whereas the longer serving electeds had enough experience, knowledge to hold the bureaucrats accountable.
I know almost nothing about Texas, or its government. But its drive-by policy making concerns me. I'd rather have my elected representatives sitting on the levers of power, keenly aware of what's what.
First, the Texas government was designed, post-Reconstruction, to give as little authority as possible to the state government and to move government as close to the citizens as possible. That's all well and good. Had we stuck with that model, I would have few complaints, but we didn't. The Legislature has, over the intervening hundred years or so, routinely chipped away at the ability for cities and counties to run themselves as their citizens see fit. To pick on a popular thing to get riled up about, as soon as Austin and Dallas tried to regulate plastic bags and Uber-style taxi services, the Legislature fell all over itself to prohibit cities from enacting ordinances of such a type. When Denton wanted to regulate (but not prohibit) fracking, the Legislature yanked that, too.
I take the view that there must be some government and that, in a state with as varied of interests and as many moving parts as Texas has, a rural-style, infrequent central government with a weak executive (the Texas Governor has some of the most limited authority out of all 46 states and 4 commonwealths in the United States), and limited home-rule city authority is not a desirable state. Running such a large entity should be a full-time job, both for the executive and the legislative, because a government should be able to react to changing conditions and the needs of its citizens. That stands separate from the scope of authority that a government should or should not have. If the government is not even present most of the time, how does it serve the oversight and governance functions? And if we wish to have limited central government, why should cities not be able to do what their citizenry wants with limited exceptions? Why can Dallas voters not tax themselves for all of the light rail they want (DART can only exercise the tax authority granted it by the state)?
Another example of "we've always done it like this" is the sunset bill. Most Texas agencies sunset after a specified time, usually 10 years. There's always a scramble in the legislative session to reauthorize some minor agency like the Texas Department of Prisons or, my personal favorite, the Railroad Commission (which, despite its name, has not regulated railroads for generations; it is the oil and gas regulator for the state). Yet, somehow this mad dash to get the work done before the Legislature goes sine die is seen as a useful exercise.
I don't understand the thinking that makes the word "politician" a pejorative, nor that it should be something that someone does in his or her spare time. Running a system that directly impacts the lives of almost thirty million people should be the singular focus of the people we send to do it. Maybe not their entire lives, but for sure while they're in office.
I now have near religious reverence for the internet's notion of renewable leases.
I will try to explain my viewpoint succinctly, and note that it isn't exactly applicable to all States everywhere, but it is definitely applicable to the Federal Government.
I don't see politician as a pejorative per se, but I do think that politicians as professionals have strong incentives to find stuff to do so they can show their voters that they are out there doing stuff, whether or not stuff needs to be done. What's great about the three-branch system of government is that even if you have a non-persistent central legislative branch, you can, in theory, have an active and vigorous Executive, or alternatively and practicing the principle of subsidiarity (or just Federalization really), have responsibility over a given thing handled by the lowest level of government capable of dealing with it, to the extent that it needs to be handled by a government at all anyway. Either way, you at least get to have active courtrooms available.
Communities can live, and let other communities live. The extended order of Liberty.
When you have an active and vigorous Legislature, and an active and vigorous Executive, you have two branches of government actively looking for things to do, so they can say to their voters "Hey, I'm out here doing these things and if you like what I'm doing, vote for me the next time around too!"
I have been questioning whether that is actually beneficial for society these last few months though, and to be honest, I'm leaning towards "No." I think the platonic ideal of a well functioning government is that it's there for the things you need it for, and no more. It still has the gun to your head taking tax revenue, but it puts it to use defending the Nation from actual (not abstract) threats, putting people in prison for a shorter list of crimes than we have now, building the roads and railways communities have decided they should have, and keeping the lights on in the Courts. (This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, just give you an idea where my mind is at lately).
When you break it down, for those kinds of jobs, you need construction workers and people signing off on the contracts. You need Judges and their clerks and bailiffs and some form of prison guard in the jails. You need a tax authority which means you need accountants and a Treasurer. You might need an Army at least sometimes, and you almost certainly need an active Navy if you're on the Ocean, and all the soldiers and sailors and airmen and crews this entails. Nowhere in there, do I see a role for an active and vigorous legislature other than to set the budget, raise the taxes it needs to support the budget, and make some bureaucrats very uncomfortable or remove them entirely when they abuse the powers of their office.
That's why we have a Civil Service (and a Military Service, and a Diplomatic Service), and why the President has the power to call Congress into session at the drop of a hat to do something that the President and his entire Executive branch doesn't have the vested Constitutional authority or budget to do on his own. What else is a legislature to do all day other than debate the merits of various lobbyist proposals, and step on the toes of governments lower on the totem pole, and pass out handouts to important power brokers and constituencies in their home districts like candy? I don't think it is meant to be a glorious job, and maybe it's not even meant to be a full-time job the way the Taxman or the Soldier or the Diplomat is supposed to be a full-time job.
I guess the long and the short of it is, it's a matter of incentives. If you're a full-time legislator, you will look for (and find!) stuff to do, even if it isn't the best use of public funds, because this job is what pays your bills. If you're not a full-time legislator, you at least have to consider the impact that legislation has on your own life when the legislature isn't in session.
I will say, I wouldn't wish for the governance structure that Texas seems to have, nor would I wish to inflict California's on anyone else. I appreciate the lessons on Texas tonight, it's given me a lot to think about.
I myself am increasingly of the opinion that while government, national and State (I’m a Californian) has a role, it has unfortunately carved out too big of a chunk and allocated itself too many roles, often on the most specious of arguments.
The idea of a legislature that meets infrequently, and where politician is a hat, not a job title, actually looks pretty ideal from where I’m standing. Why should I be disabused from this notion?