Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
In the past, I was never a supporter of term limits. I made many of the usual arguments against them, including:
We already have term limits; they’re called elections. True, incumbents tend to have an enormous advantage, but, still, we have the opportunity to toss someone out every two or four or six years.
Do we really want a Congress always filled with new people? There are advantages in having representatives who understand the workings of our institutions based on their experience.
Term limits could make representatives unaccountable to their constituents. Having to face reelections forces them to pay attention to what the folks back home are saying.
Why throw the good out with the bad? Despite the “throw the bums out” mentality, there are always very good and effective members whose value we would lose.
Those arguments, and others, have kept me on the “no term limits” side of the issue. While many of our Founders feared the rise of a permanent political class, they ultimately kept term limits out of the Constitution. And, heck, if it was good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.
However, numerous conversations with members of Congress over the last couple of years (including several since the elections in New York’s 26th district) have convinced me that term limits might be the only way we can ever make any long-term progress on the vital issues of entitlement programs and fiscal responsibility. The Founders could not have anticipated the massive web of agencies and czars and programs that have created an atmosphere in which so many of us are so dependent upon Federal and State governments. Our representatives are faced with a situation in which any real effort to reform or alter the system unleashes a torrent of demagogic vitriol (and occasionally vitriolic demagoguery).
Even among the most well-meaning of Congressmen, the argument goes something like this: “If I try to accomplish so-and-so, I’ll be accused of having horns and a tail by the opposition and the press, and I’ll spend all my time trying to defend those charges, and probably be thrown out of office, and then I won’t be able to accomplish anything. So, if I’m to help get something meaningful done, I’ll have to move slowly.” It’s easy for us to sit back and call these people cowardly, and to counsel courage and fortitude, and to tell them that people would appreciate and reward their integrity and bravery, but it’s not our jobs at stake. And I’m not even so sure those noble attributes would, in fact, be appreciated and rewarded by the voters. And who wants to be a political martyr?
In short (I know; it’s too late for that!), the insinuation of the government into virtually every aspect of our lives has made it nearly impossible for our representatives to do the right things for the good of the country without appearing to be callous to one group or another, or without upsetting one constituency or another. It’s not that these people lack backbone; it’s just that they see the fight as futile if the only result is getting themselves thrown out of office. Unfortunately, the alternative—moving slowly and incrementally—usually means not moving at all.
Conservatives complain about candidates campaigning one way and governing another, and those complaints are often valid. However, it’s not necessarily the duplicity of the candidate that’s to blame; it’s the fact that the reality of the situation hits them right between the eyes once they get into office. The other side has been spectacularly successful in framing the arguments and creating the stereotypes.
So my hope has become that term limits might free a Congressman to vote his conscience and do the things he said he would do. Instead of worrying about becoming a sacrificial lamb, he can spend his limited time in office as that lion who intended to do all the right things when he asked for your vote. The term limit movement appears to have lost a lot of its steam, but it might be time to revive it. Like chicken soup, it couldn’t hurt.
| > |
- Comment (47)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Term limits probably make more sense for some elected offices than others. While it’s hard to gerrymander a state or city, most Members of the House of Representatives of both major parties enjoy safer seats than they deserve because when their respective parties are in power they reshape their districts in an effort to assure re-election. When times are good (and they most assuredly aren’t now), incumbent House members who re-run for the same office are re-elected so overwhelmingly that only a relative handful are seriously in play.
And while term limits have been called undemocratic, it should be noted that they are always democratically enacted by voters unable to promote change by other means. Many states make it very difficult for grassroots initiatives and referenda to ever make it on the ballot.
Edited on Jun 2, 2011 at 5:51pmApr '11
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
I have always hated the "move slowly" "these things take time" answers that always seem to come when Congressmen and Senators are questioned. Why is it that pushing government back always "takes time" while stomping into every aspect of our lives can happen in a long weekend? We seem to end up with a lot of elected officials who always need "more time" to get done what we sent them to do, but who've already been there longer than we can remember. If you only had two terms to work with, and only one shot at reelection, you might try and kick things into gear. Or at least you couldn't make a lifetime career out of it. Or have seats referred to in hushed tones by the name of the one who held it. Why that's the Kennedy Seat, or the Bird Pirch or whatever. Maybe "throw the bums out" is the best plan!
Dec '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
I was a hardcore pro-term limits supporter in the early 90's, but cooled on it after the 1994 election. It appeared that the country could shift the balance of power in Congress through elections. But I am coming back to supporting the idea because it is clear that the current political culture encourages members of Congress to come to Washington and start shoveling money into their districts. If they don't, someone will promise to start shoveling the money better, and they won't be reelected. Term limits also ends the notion of careerism is Congress. The easiest way to stay in Congress for 20 years is to shovel money to your district in great quantities. If you can only stay for six years, your priorities might be different.
May '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Pat, I am just the opposite. I used to be for term limits but now I lean against them. Why? Well, in every organization there are folks without titles that amass great power because of their longevity. With term limits, nameless, unelected staffers will become even powerful than they already are, flitting from one congressman's staff to another, commanding higher and higher salaries for their insider's knowledge.
When the elected representative becomes a throw-away item, who's going to watch out and check these guys' power?
Edited on Jun 2, 2011 at 7:52amSep '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
This is the crux of it all. Acquiring the taste for power along with learning how to start making serious kickback- and favor-dough takes time. The viscous cycle soon kicks in--bring home the bacon, pass favoritist legislation, get donations--we all know how it works. Of course, a good bit of the fault rests with the corporatists and the welfare-mongers who keep voting for the creatures who have mastered these filthy schemes.
Say, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) never did answer, to my satisfaction, challenger Sharon Angle's query on how he got so rich from a U.S. Senator's salary...
Sep '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
EJHill: Pat, I am just the opposite. I used to be for term limits but now I lean against them. Why? Well, in every organization there are folks without titles that amass great power because of their longevity. With term limits, nameless, unelected staffers will become even powerful than they already are, flitting from one congressman's staff to another, commanding higher and higher salaries for their insider's knowledge.
When the elected representative becomes a throw-away item, who's going to watch out and check these guys' power? · Jun 2 at 7:51am
Edited on Jun 02 at 07:52 am
Term-limit the staffers, too. And/or limit everyone's term to a fairly high number, say 12 years or so.
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
EJHill: With term limits, nameless, unelected staffers will become even powerful than they already are, flitting from one congressman's staff to another, commanding higher and higher salaries for their insider's knowledge.
When the elected representative becomes a throw-away item, who's going to watch out and check these guys' power? · Jun 2 at 7:51am
Edited on Jun 02 at 07:52 am
Hard to argue with your misgivings, EJ. There are probably some other unintended consequences as well. In any case, I think it's all an academic exercise, because it appears the term limit movement has passed its peak.
Mar '11
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Mr. Sajak,
I'm still where you were, unconvinced by term limits. This argument is far longer than 200 words, but if you're willing, allow me this salvo: counter-intuitively, term limits entrench the power of the bureaucracy and the administrative state.
Imagine a scenario in which all national elected officials are term limited in 2016 by Constitutional Amendment. We have a completely new crop of national elected officials. They are not career pols, and therefore are coming to grips with the overwhelming pressures of being suddenly thrust into the public spotlight and with the vast number of crucial issues (foreign policy, economics, education) that require immediate attention.
Meanwhile, the labyrinthine national bureaucracy hasn’t disappear overnight. At the upper levels, it is administered by folks who have spent their lives and careers in these fields (State and Defense especially, but across the board surely). Is there not a likelihood that our neophyte elected officials will defer to the lifelong expertise of these bureaucrats, rather than being willing to upend them for goals that are unachievable in a few terms, and especially as overwhelmed as the neophytes are attempting to master so many topics in such a short time?
Mar '11
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Sorry, EJ, as I was typing you beat me to the punch.
May '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Unlimited terms facilitate dysfunction in the following way: The power in both houses of Congress is doled out based almost entirely on seniority. The members who hail from districts with healthy, active political cultures with high competition of ideas, citizen-legislators, and close elections, have high rates of turnover end up having perpetually the most junior, least powerful representation.
On the other hand, the districts with the most dysfunctional political cultures, which have political machines, gravy trains, or gerrymandered constituencies end up with the most senior members serving across decades and acquiring chairmanships on influential committees. With virtually no risk of election defeat, they only grow more powerful until they voluntarily retire.
This effect can't be good for our legislative health.
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Likelihood? I don't know. Possibility? Sure. But it's hard to imagine the entrenched bureaucracy being more powerful than it is. It's also possible the neophytes will be less likely to defer to them, as they deal with their limited window of opportunity for action.
Dec '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Looking sharp on the Capitol steps there! "Senator Sajak"---- it sings !
Dec '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
I also have held both positions on term limits, ending up opposed . For me, accountability to the voters is everything.
The issue has two facets, the problem of persuasion and the desirability of the office. On the latter, I think the founders neglected to put term limits for Congress into the Constitution because they never imagined anyone would want to serve multiple terms in the blood sucking brackish swampland of Washington DC. Ptooie.
I propose we make the position of representative or senator less attractive and incentivize the office holders to benefit the entire country, not just his or her district/state, by pegging their pay to the national median income. "They couldn't afford to live in DC!", you say? Easy. Government housing. Retirement benefits? Social Security. Health care? Medicare/Medicaid, depending on age. Serving one's country should be a sacrifice, not a means to fame and fortune. We won't need term limits. They'll be running for the doors!
The other problem, that of persuasion, lives both in the politicians and the electorate. Politicians aren't good at it and the increasingly dependent electorate is immune to it. I don't have suggestions to solve it.
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
I think that the key would be to dramatically increase the size of the House. Each Rep. is so out of touch because he represents so many people. We need to bring that representation figure back to historic levels. At the beginning, one member represented 33,000 people. Now, each member represents something like 700,000. This is an easy fix. Increase the House size by a factor of at least 2 -- though I'd like it to be much more -- and we'd see some real representation.
Jul '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Term limits do not guarantee that a representative will vote in the country's best interest. Several representatives voluntarily subjected themselves to term limits by supporting ObamaCare in 2009 (mostly Blue Dogs). Even though they knew they would take the hit for it, they voted for it anyway, then retired. I don't think term limits are the panacea for this kind of behavior. It's not powerful enough to force the wrong people to do the right thing. Maybe the immunity from its own laws that Congress habitually grants itself should be disallowed. Or tying congressional pay to some national economic datum that would be hard to fudge numerically. But they'd never vote for either one in the first place.
Apr '11
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Jonah Goldberg has discussed this idea several times in the past. I like the idea myself, but would also like to have term limits, even relatively high ones, just to end the career politicians. I think it might also help with presidential elections, especially republicans, by shortening the line of "whose turn is it anyway" candidates.
Jul '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Just curious: how would you answer the argument of taking this to its logical extreme and making every issue a national referendum?
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
And many of these people left Congress to become part of the lobbying complex. So they gained financially. That's a big problem.
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Yes, but did you roll your cursor over the photo?
Sep '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Are there any examples of term limits in actual practice?
Also, how about term-limiting the term-limits legislation? Or making it cyclic? And/or allowing a person to run again after a certain fairly lengthy period?
Or, the greatest hurdle of them all--will legislation ever even pass that significantly diminishes the power of the entrenched legislator?
I dunno, I'm just floundering here...