(Jeff Carter) – Everyone is in favor of term limits. Even Democrats I know are in favor of term limits.
At the heart of the matter is virtually everyone sees career politicians as a negative in building and sustaining our democratic republic.
The career pol starts in college. Majors in poli sci. Gets a job at a think tank or some sort of organization like that. Eventually runs for office. It’s a lower office.
Then, keeps running for office at higher levels of power until they get to a position they never leave.
Michael Madigan was Speaker of the Illinois House for over 40 years. His corruption is legendary.
Given that, when talking about various positions in politics, term limits are always seen as a good idea.
When it comes to holding an office that the general public elects, I agree term limits are a good idea.
When it comes to political parties, there might be a different answer. I think this is the question you want to answer.
If you were trying to set up a powerful political machine that won election after election and dominated the competing political party, what network structure is the best one to build?
Allow me to digress. First, you need to understand a little of what I have learned about networks. It’s complex, but I want to try to distill it to make a broader point for people to think about.
Ron Burt mathematically and statistically mapped out networks in the corporate world. There are networks inside companies and between companies.
If you think about your own life and the organizations you participate in, you will start to see network connections inside and between organizations.
Certain people inside networks are powerful. Certain people are powerful between networks. They can navigate different networks and bring things together.
He was about the first person to do this, and it was “social media” before there was social media.
Some networks are set up for brokerage, and some for closure. One isn’t better than the other. The different structures enable networks to get what they need to get done efficiently.
Burt talks about how, at Apple, Steve Jobs was everything and the rest of the employees weren’t known. The network was closed, and Jobs was the heartbeat and brain of it.
Apple was, as he describes, “a guacamole-eating, Kool-Aid drinking, cult.” That helped Apple innovate and get stuff done no other company could.
Companies like Goldman Sachs are highly decentralized. They are open. They are not cult-like, and in many cases, there is conflict between what a Goldman partner might want for their clients and what Goldman wants.
Pay at Goldman is also highly variable. Simply because you have a title doesn’t mean you make the most money.
Michael Gibbs talks about organizational structure in his book on management.
Some companies are better off with a highly centralized, permission-based structure, and others are better with more decentralized, empowering structures.
Some of the ideas in this book are very powerful. The Risky Hire is one of those.
Put simply, a food company benefits from centralization due to health risks from food production. It needs to know quickly if there is a problem and have an action plan to handle it.
However, a luxury hotel chain like Ritz-Carlton benefits from decentralization and empowering employees to make independent decisions to satisfy customers.
Given that, would you set up your political machine to be centralized or decentralized? Would you have a “boss”, or not?
Please ignore the corruption in my examples. We are only thinking about wins and losses when it comes to elections. It is possible to have a political machine and not be corrupt.
If we look through human history, the most successful political organizations have a boss and are highly centralized.
Boss Tweed. Mayor Daley. Harry Reid. Lyndon Johnson.
Democrats have generally implemented the centralized approach, whereas Republicans are more decentralized.
In urban areas, it’s served Democrats extremely well. They win and hold power. In areas like Texas or Florida, it hasn’t worked.
If you don’t think Democrats are centralized, you weren’t paying attention in 2024.
They got rid of their own nominee and didn’t have primaries to select a new one. That is textbook centralization.
In Nevada, we have a large geographical state like Texas or Florida, but like an urban area, we don’t have a lot of people.
If you were going to set up a successful political machine that won election after election, would it be decentralized or centralized?
This article was originally published via JeffreyCarter.substack.com on 9/10/2026. The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology may have been used in the research, writing, or production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
