> I wonder if strict and short term limits would inhibit the ability (for any entity) to condition the masses.

No, it would do exactly the opposite. Short term limits mean you perpetually have a revolving door of inexperienced and naive legislators who are much more prone to a) manipulation by experienced and cut-throat lobbyists and b) grabbing everything they can for their district with no regard for long-term sustainability, because they'll be gone before they can see any consequences.

I'm not picking on you in particular because I see this all over the place, but it really makes me crazy when people default to their gut emotions and desire to punish, and so come up with non-solutions like "shorter term limits!" which actually make the problem so much worse.

Term limits seem like the type of thing that would not necessarily create positive or negative results, but modulate the system.

I think it is a thing that feels right to a lot of people, but if you ask "What will term limits achieve, and what are possible unintended consequences of term limits?" I think most proponents of it would have a very hard time coming up with a satisfying answer.

I would prefer age limits before term limits.

I think the real question to ask is: "If corruption were against the law, would people still want term limits?" or "Will term limits reduce corruption?"

I think the answer is no and I think it is obviously no for the latter (revolving door).

The US used to have media ownership rules for this purpose. On balance, they worked well until they were repealed (at each step, the politicians responsible for repealing them had ties to the companies that directly benefited).

No. Term limits have nothing to do with the overall strategies being used by subversive non-government organizations. They function in the background and direct the party to steer policy in their favor. All of the deep research required to apply stress to the weak points of an institution is done at NGOs and the execution plan is essentially handed over to the party members and officials.

1) This assumes that long-serving politicians are a major driver of this activity. Doesn't seem right to me, but hey, maybe I'm wrong.

2) The main downside to term limits is that it tends to put more power into the hands of actors who are not subject to elections—professional bureaucrats, lobbyists, interest groups, and party machines, basically. My perception is that those latter three groups, especially, are behind a lot of this kind of thing—if true, term limits would make things worse, not better.

If you want to address the problems of politicians . . . find a way to:

1. pay them all FU money so they're not corruptible (I don't care how much. Maybe a trust fund for life.)

2. harshly, legally prohibit them from making any money from ever having been in office (the FU money is a cushion here)

And then . . . why limit their terms? If you have eliminated corruption, at least ostensibly, why limit terms?

Would be taken over by big corporations. Already happening to a good degree

For which office are you suggesting shorter term limits?

unfortunately political parties are machines to continue influence and power. It would change how influence was applied, but the team sport that is politics would continue with different spokepeople in office and the same people running the machinery of party in the back.