Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Argument for Term Limits
President Elect Trump recently had an interesting idea: drain the swamp. Term limits for elected politicians would allow far more turnover, which would in turn allow for a greater diversity of politicians to be elected. It is almost a no-brainer when you consider how many benefits the incumbent politician has over the challenger.
If term limits are a no-brainer then why don’t we have them already? By far the most popular explanation is simply that politicians will not vote to term limit themselves; therefore we cannot get term limits. This is obviously an oversimplification, however. Surely if term limits are obviously good, then some ambitious politician would support them in order to build his or her reputation as a principled individual. This leads to the second explanation: term limits are actually bad.
A 2006 study conducted by the NCSL is often cited as a comprehensive discussion of the negative impact of term limits. It is a “study” that is conducted by a fancy sounding organization with a four-letter acronym. Furthermore, it comes in PDF; just like a real scientific article. Here is part of the introduction discussing their methodology,
To complete this project, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the State Legislative Leaders Foundation and a group of distinguished political scientists from universities around the country worked together for three years, conducting an in-depth study of the effects of legislative term limits. The findings of the study are based on the results of two major surveys; a collection of data on the individual characteristics of all state legislators; interviews with hundreds of legislators, legislative staff and other observers of the legislative process; and a large body of data on the legislative process compiled from nine states.
That certainly sounds official and “sciency!” How could we dirt farming plebes possibly argue with that? Except that it is totally questionable. This isn’t physics or chemistry where there were control groups and a concerted effort by many different research groups to refute the theory as occurs in real scientific practice. This is political science done with subjective interviews, “expert” opinions, and a couple of surveys. We shouldn’t pretend that this is Einstein proving gravitational lensing. It most definitely is not.
A cynical interpretation of this description is that the study was conducted and supported by technocrats, bureaucrats, and career politicians; all of which have reason to oppose term limits. Can we really trust the opinions of people like this? Obviously we should approach all information skeptically, but this smacks of opinion wrapped up in the garb of “science”. This group has the right to protect their positions just as we have the right to argue against it.
Let’s take a look at what it actually says in the study. I found two angles repeatedly used by the study that supposedly reveal negatives: (1) legislatures are too complicated for term limits because they make the learning curve too steep for newly elected politicians and (2) term limits encourages uncivil behavior between legislators. As we shall see, both of these are a matter of perspective.
The go-to criticism of term limits is that it leads to uninformed lawmakers. According to this criticism, lawmaking is like being a doctor or engineer in that it requires a form of expertise. You wouldn’t let just anyone perform heart surgery or fix your car’s engine, so why would you let just anyone participate in the legislature? They really want this to scare us, so they even go so far as to claim that new and ignorant lawmakers are easier to manipulate by the evil lobbyists.
However, is it really the case that we need experts to run our lives? That doesn’t sound right at all. As far as I am concerned, I am an expert on my own life. Being a lawmaker simply isn’t the same as being a doctor or an engineer. It’s a bad analogy. Similarly, what kind of legislative system do we have that requires such intense expertise? Is that really what the founders had in mind: a massively complex bureaucracy that can only be understood and operated by people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of political power alone? I don’t think so. They even go so far as to claim that 12-year term limits are not enough time for lawmakers to become sufficiently acquainted with the process! 12 years is too short a time?!? If that’s true, the system is in need of an overhaul anyway.
The second criticism is that term limits make the legislators uncivil towards one another. There are two parts to this: (1) term limits make new lawmakers more likely to challenge their party elders for leadership and (2) term limits make bipartisan committees more political and partisan and prevent the different sides from working together to perform their legislative function. That sounds bad, right? I don’t think so.
Term limits remove the tenure system for leadership selection. Without term limits the lawmakers have to wait for their turn to be a leader. It also makes new lawmakers bolder in opposition to current leaders because they know that the leader cannot punish them down the line. Now think about that for a minute: is it really appropriate that there is a tenure system in the first place? Shouldn’t we want the best lawmaker to be the leader regardless of the amount of time he has put in? Tenure removes accountability, which is pretty much anti-merit. Also, wouldn’t fear of punishment down the line encourage our lawmakers to blindly follow the leader? How can that possibly be construed as a real benefit?
Term limits also supposedly make bipartisan committees less civil. Apparently, committees are supposed to be fun, safe spaces, where everyone works together to pass laws and grow the government. What about the duty of lawmakers to represent their constituents and oppose ideas that conflict with their stated ideology? It sounds like committees are currently places where everyone goes along to get along. That’s nice and all but… doesn’t that encourage groupthink? Isn’t that how we got our national debt so high in the first place? Personally, I want our lawmakers to fight in committees and stand on principle. Isn’t that how it is supposed to be? The system is rigged in a number of different ways, and term limits won’t fix all the problems. It is however a good start.
Published in General
I presume you’ve seen the endorsements and letters to the editor at election time. The case is often made to elect re-Representative X because he brings jobs and programs to our district. I’ve seen newspaper editorials make this point in both national and state elections. Maybe nobody pays any attention to newspaper editorials, but I’ve read the same thing in letters to the editor. I’ve seen legislators make those statements about themselves as they run for election. I’ve seen people on internet forums make the same arguments as to why they want government cut back, but they favor their long-term incumbent because he does things for his constituents.
So these people all disagree with you. They think that incumbency means more jobs and programs for their district.
This is a major problem in bringing our budgets under control and clawing back the size and scope of government.
If you truly found my argument unpersuasive you would address it. So I don’t believe you.
Do you propose that the limit on terms be set at one?
What is the connection between the population of Nevada (or more generally our system of equal representation in the senate) and term limits?
Why do you ask that when I’ve suggested repeatedly where the limits should be set and where they should not be set?
I have no problem with Nevada having two senators per 2.8 million population, compared to the U.S. population of 319 million being represented by 100 representatives, even though Nevada has twice as many senators per person as the nation as a whole. What I have a problem with is Michigan or Nevada having even more inordinate influence over elections due to the incumbency of their 6-term senators who are elected, not because of their merits but because they bring home the bacon. Complete equality of influence is neither attainable nor desirable, but what we have now is far too extreme an inequality. That extreme inequality of influence would be reduced by term limits, and create an atmosphere in which we could nudge the political process to consider national interest a bit more in its competition with short-sighted, self-interested considerations at the local level. A slight nudge in that direction would would enable a lot of good to be done in returning our government to its proper scope of authority.
Do you think term limits diminish the ability or inclination of representatives to service their constituents?
I was so eager to answer your question that I typed out a two line answer. But then I deleted it realizing that you haven’t answered mine. So what’s the use. I hope somebody else does ask that question, though, so I can answer it.
But surely a determination of their merits is made by their constituents at election and, in the case of leadership positions, by their colleagues. Reid didn’t get to be leader by seniority. He was chosen by the Senate Democratic Caucus.
Could you elaborate a bit on this point? I just don’t see how the inequality of representation caused by population differences between states is in any way affected by limiting the tenure of individual senators.
I’m speaking of his influence outside of his role as minority/majority leader. This should be obvious when I include Carl Levin among my examples. He wasn’t minority/majority leader.
I brought Michigan into the issue to clarify that it’s not the population difference that matters; it’s the outsized influence due to long tenure.
Okay, I think we’re getting a bit sidetracked and I’m sure it’s my fault for going down the leadership rabbit hole. My point was that if the people of the great state of Michigan assess merit in their representatives based on how much pork is brought home how is that anyone else’s concern? If they couldn’t have Levin they’d pick another pork appropriator.
This is especially egregious, Sal. Read what he’s said first. Stop with the stupid questions and engage things here, please.
Larry, I asked the question rhetorically. Only by limiting legislators to a single term could you remove the incentive to pork among office holders.