Comment & Debate
Term limits for legislators has been a hot issue in the United States for a number of decades now. “Homesteading” in Congress, made possible by reelection rates that approached 100% by the end of the 20th century, brought about a popular insurgency known as the “term-limits movement”. The elections of 1990-94 saw the adoption of term limits for state legislatures in almost every state where citizens had the power of the initiative. In addition 23 states tried to limit service in their delegation to Congress, with the general formula being three terms [six years] in the U.S. House and two terms [twelve years] in the U.S. Senate (this was later disallowed by the Supreme Court). In the elections of 1994, part of the Republican platform was to pass legislation setting term limits in Congress. After winning the majority, they brought a constitutional amendment to the House floor, but it failed. Later, in April of 2011 amid a wave of Tea Party anti-government and anti-spending sentiments across the country, Senator Jim DeMint introduced term-limit legislation in Congress. He justified the legislation saying, “We need true citizen legislators who spend their time defending the constitution, not currying favor with lobbyists. We need new leaders continually coming to Congress to ensure every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely, not wasted on Washington special interests. We must end the era of permanent politicians that has led us to a $14 trillion debt and a pending fiscal crisis.” These arguments and their counter arguments are outlined below.
“If Madison knew in 1788, when the Constitution was ratified, that the United States would be inundated with career politicians, at all levels of government, with similar stories as Arlen Specter, I am confident that he would have reconsidered the idea of term limits and it would have become part of our Constitution over 200 years ago.”
U.S. Term Limits President Philip Blumel: “Limiting terms will allow citizen legislators to come to Washington, DC, fix the problems and then go home to resume their lives, instead of becoming encamped in the cloistered world inside the DC Beltway.”
The beliefs of a politician and the stances they take on certain issues are the most important factors in judging a candidate. This is more important than their experience. Difficult technical questions are handled by appointed specialists and most members of Congress have advisors on such issues.[3] This all diminishes the importance of valuing political experience against the imposition of term limits on legislators.
“What goes on is a socialization process: a nicer way of saying indoctrination. One is surrounded by people who have a biased reason for arguing that federal spending is good, necessary, wise and proper. There’s no reason for anyone to enter this process if he believes it’s unwise or unethical.”
“Seeing Rangel about to face an embarrassing public trial for his ethical lapses after 20 terms in Congress has caused me to look more suspiciously on the unlimited terms for members of Congress. Only a precious few can bask so continuously in the reverential deference of so many and manage to retain their honesty and, even more important, their humility.”
“What most interests me, now, is that Specter’s affiliation change shows how difficult it is to change currents in government. The old guard can flip, stay in power, and the power brokers switch chairs from friend to foe and vice versa. If senators served under term limits, this whole issue — and the problem it reveals — would not even come up.”
Term limits only prevent people from holding the same office for too long, not from staying in politics generally. People who are elected to important positions will, for example, likely have experience in similar areas from previous elected offices. So it does allow people to still make a career out of politics, but not with the same pernicious grip on singular offices and power.
Those that demonize career politicians have it backwards. Politicians are public servants, making significantly less money than many other members of society in a largely self-less and thankless career field. This is more often than not driven by a desire to do good for one’s country, state, community, etc. This should not be spat at, but celebrated. If a public servant does a good job, why not reward their service with a positive vote and more time in office.
“California already has term limits. And they’re a disaster. Virtually everyone I interviewed for that piece named term limits as a contributor to California’s fiscal crisis. Imagine, for instance, that you elect a well-liked local physician’s assistant to the state Assembly. Doesn’t matter the party. Our hypothetical legislator might know a lot about medical care. But she probably knows nothing about the budget. This stuff takes awhile to learn, after all. And remember, she’s not studying budget politics full time: She’s raising money and dealing with constituent service and reading up on other bills and traveling back-and-forth from her district. So how long till our doctor-legislator really gets the budget, understands the legislative process, and matures into the sort of seasoned assemblywoman we’d want responding to a devastating fiscal crisis? Eight years? Twelve years? More? Too bad. Six years and she’s out.”
There is a vague desire among term limit advocates for politicians to return to their previous careers. But why? What value does this add to legislating? None. Rather, it is simply based on a hatred of politicians and public servants, and a misunderstanding of the fact that their job title requires them to constantly try to understand the needs and desires of the people they represent. The more experience in this the better.
“there is great value to keeping someone in office who’s done a good job and is executing a vision the voters support. We’ve seen the benefits and disadvantages of establishing term limits in the Louisiana Legislature. While it has infused new blood, new vision and new energy into the legislative process, career politicians merely switch chambers. And when you’ve got chambers filled with newly elected legislators, there can be a lot of wasted time and effort while these folks learn the ropes.”
Politicians in their first or second terms are still trying frantically to prove themselves, and so spend alot of time trying to do things simply because it will get them attention and PR. This is not what good legislating is all about. Career politicians, by contrast, are able to focus more on long-term legislating, even when it’s not so sexy.
“Our legislature is designed to be made up of politicians of equal importance, but under the current system lawmakers who have served for a long time are able to dominate. This is true for a number of reasons. First, their experience gives them more political savvy. Second, more time spent in Washington allows them to establish many important connections. Additionally, the near-inevitability of reelection allows them to operate with little concern for the opinions of their constituencies. Most importantly, seniority determines who holds important positions like chairmanships of Congressional subcommittees. The problem with concentrating power in senior politicians is that while such inequality is often good for their constituencies – powerful congressmen can help ensure that a lot of federal funding goes into plans that help their district – it is often detrimental to the country as a whole.”
Career politicians get complacent in their jobs after ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years in office. They feel that they are at less and less risk of losing their jobs, and generally just lose the impulse to try to work hard and impress their constituents with productivity. Newly elected politicians are much different, feeling a desire to work extremely hard and achieve great things. Term limits fosters this new energy, vitality, and work ethic.
“when the same people remain in power term after term, new ideas are not brought forward and government remains ideologically stagnant.”
“The road to real deficit reduction, not a cosmetic nip and tuck, runs through term limits. If Americans are truly interested in shrinking the size of government — one of the takeaways from the 2010 midterm election — they can start by limiting the amount of time lawmakers are allowed to serve. […] Unless you believe in fairy tales, a prerequisite for smaller government is short-term legislators.”
Without term limits, Senators or Congressmen can stay in power for so long that younger generations sometimes give up hope of attaining these higher positions of power. This impairs the creation of a reserve of talent in politics and governance. This also increases competition among candidates, which is always good for the electoral process, democracy, and governance.
Term limits are driven by an odd hatred of government and politicians. They imagine that all politicians become corrupt over time, that they lose their moral compass to the influence of interests groups, that the process of understanding the various needs of citizens and companies through interests groups is evil, that only the private sector has virtue, and that government and government spending is generally bad. This perverse understanding of government and politicians is the core problem with the pro term limit movement. It forgets that all politicians are elected by voters and that voters can decide to boot out politicians if they cease to fulfill their promises and duties. In general, therefore, it perverts and diminishes our entire understanding of what democracy actually is, replacing the will of the people with arbitrary limits that may have nothing to do with what the people want and what is in the best interests of society in general.
Subcommittee heads will always have a lot of power. Term limits merely transfer this power to less experienced politicians, rather than limiting it. Furthermore, veteran politicians will continue to exist even with term limits: term limits will simply allow people to hold different offices subsequently rather than the same office for a long time.
“An even bigger problem is [term limits’] potential impact on government spending. Take the lowly citizen (whom we will call ‘Mr. Smith’) who decides to run for his state’s legislature. It takes an enormous amount of time, energy, and money to get elected. Upon getting to the House, he realizes he wants to do more and help more people, and do it without the pressure of having to run again every two years. He gets elected to his state Senate and before he knows it, Smith wants to put his sights on the US House in Washington, DC. Once he gets there, he notes the new term limits and he knows that eight years will be here in no time and he immediately begins to focus on statewide office… the US Senate, Governor, or other office. In order to have ‘a name’ through out the state and favors to bear, Mr. Smith will send pork to the entire state from day one. As candidates feel forced to run for higher office, they will feel forced to share the wealth.”
“Congressional bureaucrats would rule Capitol Hill and Members of Congress would largely blindly follow. The stock of those who represent us would crash, while the unelected bureaucrats would grow in influence.”
“Term limits sever from time to time the natural comfortable tie between members and special interests in their district. They bring government closer to the people and improve citizen access to the process,” according to Philip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits, the largest advocacy group in the field.
“If we really want to put an end to business as usual, we’ve got to have new leaders coming to Washington instead of rearranging the deck chairs as the ship goes down,” Jim DeMint of South Carolina said in a 2009 press release.
The non-profit US Terms Limits notes on their website: “special interests and lobbyists continue to combat term limits, as they know term limits force out career politicians who are more concerned with their own gain than the interests of the American people.”
When term-limits exist, lobbyists simply adjust to the quickened timetable of finite terms in office. They are skilled enough to ensure that they maintain their influence despite the shorter term-limit.
Interests groups are often demonized, but they are, as a matter of fact, simply the mouth piece of citizens, citizen-organizations, and businesses expressing their various interests to politicians. Career politicians have a good sense of these many different interests, as they should. There is nothing wrong with this. It’s a good thing. New politicians do not have the same grasp, and so are more likely to make decisions that do not consider all interests involved.
“In today’s world, it’s naive to say ‘the voters term limit by their vote.’ While ‘throwing the bums out’ is a popular term today, it’s far more difficult than it looks. An incumbent who’s done a fairly decent job usually has name recognition and a campaign fund that may scare off a political neophyte with great ideas and a passion to serve. And incumbents who’ve served multiple terms can become career politicians by virtue of the campaign funds they’re able to build.”
The Democratic congressman from Maryland, who has received backing on his measure from some Republicans, says that in a democracy “the public ought to have the opportunity to retain or reject” politicians. Hoyer said in April 2005, when he introduced a congressional resolution on repeal, that overturning presidential term limits would restore to the American people “an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future.”
“It is the responsibility of an informed citizenry to impose term limits on our elected officials.” If they are not capable of voting somebody out that deserves to be voted out, then that is their own fault, and a fault of their own ignorance and lack of self-education regarding issues of state.
Not only do voters have a right to retain/reject, they are actually also better at it then anybody else and any law.
To access the second half of this Issue Report Login or Buy Issue Report
To access the second half of all Issue Reports Login or Subscribe Now
