Twilight of the Senate
Over at the Washington Examiner's "Beltway Confidential" blog, Sean Higgins reacts to a piece by the Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe highlighting some of the longest-serving members of the U.S. Senate.
Amongst the upper chamber's iron-men (and women): Susan Collins, who's on the cusp of her 5,000th consecutive vote; Chuck Grassley, who's nearly 1,500 yeas and nays ahead of her; Patrick Leahy, who's approaching vote number 14,000; and the reigning champion, Hawaii's Daniel Inouye, who has cast more than 16,000 votes (Inouye, of course, was originally appointed to the seat by King Kamehameha).
Higgins is not amused:
O’Keefe calls these “impressive milestones.” From a totally objective perspective, that is true. But it also goes a long way towards explaining why the Senate such a slow, hidebound institution. Did the founders really intend for it to be a lifetime tenured position for a small, elite group of politicians? Shouldn’t fresh blood be injected more often? Term limits anyone?
Well, how about it, Ricochet members? Would term limits solve the problem (or at least push us in the right direction)? Or do they simply throw out the good with the bad, ceding more power to institutional Washington in the process. Your thoughts, if you please.
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '12
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Term limits give us an excuse to not pay attention. We have every opportunity to replace our senators every 6 years. If we keep sending them back we have exactly the government we deserve.
Dec '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
What Brent said. We need a more engaged electorate. Of course, when it takes an act of God to push reelection below 80% we seem to be far from the goal of an engaged electorate.
Nov '11
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Does power corrupt, or does power corrupt the corruptible?
Or would term limits effectively empower staff and bureaucracies over the actual elected officials?
I've been ambivalent about term limits for a while. I just have a sneaking suspicion that there is an infinite supply of the kind of politicians we'd be trying to term-limit out -- while the best kind have a limited availability, and we should hang on to them while we can.
One thing I'm sure of: conservatives shouldn't unilaterally disarm ourselves by pushing our own to commit themselves to self-imposed term limits. That just ensures that all the experts of political and parliamentary maneuver are on the other side.
Keeping primaries competitive -- so that a safe seat doesn't instantly remove accountability -- seems like a better goal than term limits.
Edited on July 10, 2012 at 7:13pmMar '12
Re: Twilight of the Senate
"Slow, hidebound" sounded pretty good to me 2009-10. Whatever laggard status we enjoy in the race with Euroland to welfare state bankruptcy is probably credit to the Senate and its 60 vote requirement. But seniority contributed as well. Of all the amendments to the US Constitution I might wish for, term limits for Senators would be low on the list, if on it at all.
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Actually, the Founders hoped that the Senators would serve for a long time. The Senate was to be a source of stability and of the wisdom nurtured by long experience. Think of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay.
It was in the House that they expected and desired rapid turnover -- which is what we got until the rise of the professional politician and perfection in the art of gerrymandering. If term limits were appropriate, it would be with regard to the House. And if term limits were applied to the House, Senate races would become more competitive (which would do no harm).
Nov '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
This book convinced me years ago that term limits are necessary. I remain unconvinced that out of the 400+ million Americans we cannot find good people to fill the 537 spots in the House and Senate over the course of 6-12 years.
Dec '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Let's repeal the 17th amendment.
Jul '11
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Term limits are not enough. What is needed is a cap on the number of years of government service across the board. Something that covers all parts of the government service; legislative, judicial, executive and bureaucratic alike. Yes, I know that bureaucrats are not normally considered to be a separate branch of the government but considering how much power the other branches have ceded to the bureaucrats it may well be that they are the strongest.
Mar '11
Re: Twilight of the Senate
We should be grateful that US Senators are not made Lords for life, like in the UK.
Ironically, today saw attempts to make the UK Upper House a little more like the US Senate failing miserably.
Jul '12
Re: Twilight of the Senate
The downside of term limits is the eventual loss of effective people who know how to garner support for their positions and work with those across the aisle. But the upside is getting rid of long-time residents whose entrenched positions result in a sense of entitlement to the power to forge legislation on a whim, and whose insulation from real people leads to laws with horrendous unintended consequences. The idea of a career politician is contrary to the principle of citizen government, ie that any citizen may run for office. In sum, I favor term limits.
May '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
The longest serving politicians tend to be from the most dysfunctional districts, where they have control over a political machine for perpetual re-election. This means the most senior (most powerful) members of Congress correlate with the least desirable members. Term limits would reduce this problem.
Dec '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
This would do a world of good in our governance. Since ratification of the 17th, many (most) people have forgotten that the union which made us a nation was between independent, sovereign states. Now, thanks to the 17th amendment, the states have no voice in our national government. We fret often about the undoing of our founders' vision, but the work was actually completed on April 8th, 1913.
Mar '11
Re: Twilight of the Senate
I am a former Congressional staffer and have very strong views on this. Term limits are a wonderful theory that just doesn't work in practice. And it's particularly bad for Republicans.
Here's the deal: term limits cede power to staff. Being a Senator or Representative is not an easy job and there's a steep learning curve. What tends to happen in states where there are term limits is that this learning curve creates a new class of "professional staff" who sell themselves as helping new electeds learn the system. The professional staff essentially run the show and, in my experience now working in California, it becomes a game to them -- it's more about winning that game versus staff from the other side (often a friend or at least a friendly foe) than it is about good governance.
Here's the rub for Republicans. Republican staffers tend to view their job as a means to an end (i.e. a better paying job in the consulting world). Democrat staffers rarely leave -- government work is a mission, not a means to an end. As a result, Republican staffers usually lose the game because they are less skilled.
Edited on July 10, 2012 at 8:00pmJan '11
Re: Twilight of the Senate
California enacted fairly restrictive term limits in 1990 (with some more restrictive tweaks on the 2012 ballot). It doesn't seem to have improved California's highly dysfunctional legislature.
Jun '12
Re: Twilight of the Senate
I have never liked term limits as a solution. Limits provide a "quick fix" to a complicated problem. They are a meat-ax, when a scaple is needed.
I have seen poor effects at local and state levels, frequently, a politician with whom I agree, is forced to depart and I disagree with the replacement's policies more. This may work both ways, and sometimes I can celebrate the result. Overall, the result needs to be more closely linked to principle, not just the calandar. A more active, more aware electorate is needed, where the over-the-hill politician, or one who has "grown" in office too much is shown the door. It is the ballot box, not a term limit that best accomplishes this. We need an office holder versed in parlimentary procedures, and understanding intended and unexpected effects of decisions, but as soon as they are knowledgable, term limits toss them out and we start over. The result is too much democracy, and too little representative republic. The resulting executive and legislative branches seem to become too enamored of the fad of the day.
Jan '11
Re: Twilight of the Senate
If the Senate were a deliberative body, as it was designed to be, then having experienced senators would be a great asset. The intellectual energy required to engage in debate, however, would also serve to weed out those senators whose time has passed. So long as they could engage in debate effectively, we could get the maximum benefit from their age.
But the senate doesn't do much of that anymore. Being a senator no longer requires the same intellectual agility.
Instead of term limits, I'd rather see them do something about the waste of time the Senate has become.
Jul '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Once on a radio talk show P J O’Rourke replied to a caller’s question about term limits: “Which do you want; a dog that knows where the bones are buried or a dog that’s going to tear up the whole front yard? In that respect I agree with Dr. Rahe (who thankfully seems to be doing quite well after his surgery ordeal). The Senate, the deliberative body, needs to know where those bones are buried in order to maintain stability and also to act wisely on appropriation bills from the House.
But as Fake John Galt wrote, the bureaucracy seems to have eclipsed both chambers due largely to the actions – or should I say, inactions – of both. General, non-specific legislation has been passed by them both giving free rein to, say, the EPA which has now become judge, jury, and executioner over all things environmental. Was this laziness or a deliberate play for power on the part of the progressives?
Continued
Jul '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
Continued from above
And would limiting bureaucrats’ time in their jobs lead to the dog and bone question? As to the unworkable size of all of them throughout the country, Mr. Reagan often complained about their growth, but found trying to trim them nearly impossible. He remarked to Queen Elizabeth at a reception that bureaucrats’ salaries depended upon the number of people reporting to them, thus giving them no incentive to make cuts.
Which all leads to the big question, How do we get an informed electorate? And what needs to be dealt with first? Troy, your question has just led to more questions. Not easy. I would say that perhaps term limits in the House would be a good start if only for the appropriations issue. But it remains, how can the public be made aware of the ramifications of this? If Romney chooses to deal with all of this in addition to the rest of the country’s pressing problems, perhaps in his second term he can take a stab at it.
Apr '11
Re: Twilight of the Senate
I don't care how many votes Inouye has cast. What horrifies me is how many votes the Senate calls. Nearly every one was an effort, irrelevant to the general welfare, to benefit some particular interest to the detriment of the whole or of some other interest. We have long-serving "war-horses" because they bring home the bacon, first to their political machines and then to highly motivated groups of constituents.
We don't need to shoot the war-horses. Just put them out to pasture for a month every other month. As James J. Kilpatrick used to write, "The Congress is in recess and the Republic is safe for a fortnight".
Dec '10
Re: Twilight of the Senate
So might repealing the 17th Amendment.