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 :
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Tripedis Canis
Just curious: how would you answer the argument of taking this to its logical extreme and making every issue a national referendum? · Jun 2 at 8:40am
Not entirely sure what you're saying. I'm just arguing that one representative for nearly a million people bears very little resemblance to our founding idea of one rep for several thousand.
Nov '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
For me, the issue is not term limits. The issue is professional politicians. Gone are the days of the citizen legislator who went to Washington for less than a 3rd of the time and went back home to do a regular job like the rest of us. Most of these guys and gals have never held down a real job, witness one BHO. We truly have developed the Roman patrician ruling class who believe that it is their right to rule.
I like the very limited practice of the Texas state assembly where they only meet for a maximum of 140 days every other year. What I love about this limited time is also the limit on the number of laws that they can pass. The limiter on the old adage: work expands to fill the time available. We need less time available for these yahoos to make more laws. However, first, we need them to repeal a great deal of the ones they have placed on a backs of common citizens.
Apr '11
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Good topic Pat,
I'm reminded of the quote "alas dear Brutus, the fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves"
I speak for myself mostly when I say that it has taken me quite a number of years to take thought of the cost and reach of government and their policies all of which I may have supported through my ignorance or apathy or both.
Term limits or not we "Baby Boomers" as Victor Davis Hanson mentioned in his latest NRO article are to selfish and are unwilling to do without and unwilling to be labeled cruel , heartless and mean spirited to deny anything to anyone else who tugs at our heart strings.
Pat, I feel no matter which is in place the problem truly lies in what we as an electorate are willing to concede to our representatives regardless of how long or short the serve.
Mollie, more Reps are alos a good idea!
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Just one comment, Mr. Sajak--and, although I see others here have beat me to it, I'll repeat it: You look good on the Capitol steps, really remarkably good, almost God-put-you-on-earth-to-stand-there-in-your-own-right-someday good.
Barbara Mikulski can't serve forever.
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
This is Maryland. Don't bet on it.
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
The Founders expected lots of turnover in the House of Representatives, and that is what they got -- until, late in the 19th century, professional politicians took over. They chose longer terms and hoped for more continuity in the Senate. One of the two houses was to guarantee popular consent; the other was to contribute a modicum of wisdom born of experience.
Since 1912, there has been more turnover in the Senate than in the House -- thanks in part to the ever more precise science of gerrymandering.
It seems to me that term-limits for the House and the House alone would do the trick. It would encourage competitive races in the House. Even in one-party districts there would be primary battles every so many years. And the Congressmen forced to retire would be apt to run for the Senate, which would reduce the number of uncompetitive races there.
Jan '11
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
I was a term limit guy. Now I'm a 2nd amendment guy.
Nov '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Pat Sajak
Yes, but did you roll your cursor over the photo? · Jun 2 at 8:55am
Love it. But, honestly, sure; if Hollywood hasn't completely corrupted you, why should we think DC would? I bet most of Ricochet would be happy to have you represent us for as long as you liked.
Edited on Jun 2, 2011 at 10:03amMar '11
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
I have serious concerns about citizen referendums as they threaten to turn a constitutional republic into a direct democracy where the immediate passions of the people become law without being filtered through a series of checks and balances. The founders studied various forms of government throughout human history and sought to create system that would be best for the people and for their liberty, and they concluded that direct democracies are dangerous and short-lived.
Tripedis Canis
Just curious: how would you answer the argument of taking this to its logical extreme and making every issue a national referendum? · Jun 2 at 8:40am
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
As SDSpicer observed over on the Romney thread, Pat, we need to take things one step at a time. First we get you elected to the Senate. Then we enact term limits.
May '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Lucy Pevensie
Pat Sajak
Yes, but did you roll your cursor over the photo? · Jun 2 at 8:55am
Love it. But, honestly, sure; if Hollywood hasn't completely corrupted you, why should we think DC would? I bet most of Ricochet would be happy to have you represent us for as long as you liked. · Jun 2 at 10:01am
Edited on Jun 02 at 10:03 am
Okay. I'm in.
Nov '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
I can already see the campaign slogan:
_AT _AJAK FOR CONGRE_ _
Edited on Jun 2, 2011 at 1:16pmMar '11
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Let it be remembered that here in CA as an act of desperation we also latched onto this a solution to our woes in Sacramento. Proposition 140 enacted in 1990 limited Assembly members to three two-year terms and Senate members to two four-year terms.
We're still waiting for that improved quality of governance.
Mar '11
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Also worth noting, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and the California Teachers Association unions are more powerful than they have ever been.
Dec '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Agree, Mollie, and repeal the 17th amendment, putting true state representation back into the federal equation. There are other compensatory measures that could be taken - discontinuing the pension/health care benefits (If medicare and SS are good enough for us,...) and having each state purchase and maintain its own "consulates" in DC for the use of its representatives. Taking money out of the job would probably reduce the need for term limits (although those wouldn't hurt).
Mar '11
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
On a final note for how the term limits experiment has worked out for conservatives here in California one can peruse Jon Fleishman's, vice chairman (South) of the California Republican Party, Why A Conservative Backs Term Limits and contrast with Bob Naylor's, California Assembly from 1978 -86, Why Conservatives Should Be Against Term Limits.
Edited on Jun 2, 2011 at 1:42pmJun '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Pat Sajak
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.
I beg to differ. This was the reason they decided to make America a republic rather than a kingdom. And despite their best efforts, we've just about ended up there anyway.
Aug '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
The mighty George Will wrote a pretty impressive book in defense of term limits - "Restoration."
As for me - rather than just term limits - howzabout tighter limits on all things governmental? The size of staffs, the number of buildings, the number of federal employees, available parking - whatever it takes to make Washington DC less important in the lives of everyday Americans?
Aug '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
John Marini has written persuasively against Term Limits, and I for one agree with him. It may be hard for you to imagine a more entrenched and powerful bureaucracy, but then again you live in California. California has had term limits and with them we have seen the growth in power of the Teacher's Unions who now essentially run the state. Examine Judy Chu's career, and her husbands, and see where they got their start and how static their power network is. Parts of the San Gabriel Valley are essentially run by the Chu machine at multiple levels of governance.
If you want to shake things up, then limit the power of the individual politician. The only way I see to do this is to increase the number of representatives so that they represent smaller constituencies. A person representing 800k people can funnel more money "home" than one who represents 70k people. They are also less accountable to their consitutents.
We also need active citizens. Things like Bell's scandal occurred because no one was paying attention and bureaucrats and politicians colluded. Weaken the bureaucratic class and a weakening of the political class will follow.
Sep '10
Re: Why I've Come Around on Term Limits
Pat, you have my vote for your congressional or senatorial run. Of course, I'm Canadian.