Let's talk about term limits

[Startraveler]

Once in a while the suggestion of term limits for U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators will come up and some people will excitedly embrace the idea. But before we reflexively accept term limits, there needs to be a lot more discussion of how we think our government ought to work and how it already works. So it's time for some due diligence on this issue.

I'll start by saying that I'm uncomfortable with the idea of term limits for a few reasons:

• As I've said before, it seems like a tacit admission that voters can't be trusted to make electoral choices for themselves. That may or may not be the case, but to codify our evaluation of their ineptitude when one of the key pillars upon which they mythos of our country rests is the supremacy (and wisdom) of the voter, this seems radical.
  
• Term limits are usually suggested as a method for making elections fairer; they seem like a very indirect (and ineffective) way to do that. Incumbents get one of their main advantages from the fact that they can raise money more easily than challengers. Once the benefits of incumbency erode, the torch just gets passed to the next guy who can raise money most easily (your self-financing millionaires, your sons/daughters/brothers/cousins/whatever of former politicians who can employ their relative's former fundraising apparatus, and so on). If the problem is that we don't like the role money has in politics, term limits won't eliminate that, they'll just shift the benefits of that system away from incumbents and onto somebody else.
  
• Experience and skill aren't vices. Of all the reasons to keep someone off a ballot, prior experience in the office for which they're running seems like a weak one. There's something to be said for people who know how to maneuver legislation through Congress (think of the accolades Ted Kennedy received for the huge body of work he did during his tenure in the Senate).
  
• Term limits would shift the balance of power in government away from elected leaders and to the federal bureaucracy. Again, this might actually not be a bad thing (think of elected leaders playing politics with Medicare reimbursements vs. a more dispassionate (unelected) advisory committee setting rates) but it's something that needs to be thought about and discussed because the ramifications could be large.

That said, there are valid points to be made in favor of term limits. The seniority system in Congress obviously favors people who can keep their seats for a long time--that is, people from "safe" (i.e. ideologically coherent and perhaps less moderate) districts. I think it would be a stretch to blame the current era of polarization in Congress on this particular feature of Congress but I'm sure someone could make an argument for that if they wanted to. It may also be that, regardless of whether I personally like my Congressman or Senators, it would lead to better outcomes globally if every voter eventually faced term limited politicians. So even if I like Sherrod Brown in Ohio or I liked Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, I don't especially like Orrin Hatch in Utah or (previously) Strom Thurmond in South Carolina. So perhaps the good of tying other voters' hands (outside of my state or district) outweighs the bad of tying my own hands. But I think that has huge implications: are we willing to embrace a principle that basically says I should get a (very indirect) say in the electoral decisions you make in your district or state? Decisions that aren't really any of my business?

Of course then you could bounce back and point out that Congress itself, particularly the Senate, already operates in (sometimes profoundly) anti-democratic ways so why put such a premium on the democratic act of voting? Great, I can vote for a guy but maybe he's not the chairman of a committee or maybe his ideas are going to be filibustered so my vote doesn't really count as much as the vote of someone who votes for a guy who'll have more power in the same legislative body. If we take this view, voting is basically a facade anyway so who cares if we strip away the veneer of democratic decision-making by instituting term limits? Then there's the question of whether elected officials should be voting for what the majority of their district wants or whether they should be weighing the issues for themselves and voting their consciences.

Anyway, I've rambled enough. What do you think of term limits? And how do you think our government ought to work? It's a pretty broad topic so take it wherever you want.

[Wickian]

I can understand the argument from both sides, but personally I think change in the leadership positions of government is a good thing in the long run. Politicians would have less to lose and could voice their honest opinions without fear of losing their voters opinions.

Even if they are honestly worse than they are now, at least they're being honest about it.

[Startraveler]

You bring up a good point that I forgot to mention in the OP: politicians in their final term may act differently than those up for re-election. Since they no longer have to answer to voters, you might suspect that they'd be as independent and conscience-bound as any politician can be. However, many times that's not the case because many retiring politicians are simply leaving elected office, not the political sphere itself. This is due to the revolving door that brings departing politicians into an industry that can use their institutional knowledge and connections. So a politician in his final term may be free from answering to the voters (which may or may not be a good thing) but he may also just be shilling for the industry for which he's already packing his bags.

I'm not sure what the practical implication of more and more lame ducks in every session of Congress would be but that could easily turn out to be a net negative.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Startraveler

[Cadetak]

There's a lot of pros and cons for each. It is my opinion that it should be left up to the voters because in the off chance we get somebody super awesome in office I would hate to see them have to leave just because of term limit. If the people want the politician to keep their position then they should be allowed to make that decision.

[AROCES]

After seeing Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd on the floor looking like they are about to die right there, some kind of term limit is necessary.

Voters cant have all they want either, like sending representative who are half alive.

[Startraveler]

After seeing Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd on the floor looking like they are about to die right there, some kind of term limit is necessary.

What you're talking about is an age limit. If someone can still run for their first term when they're, say, 90 then you still face the possibility of a politician with serious health problems. Besides, Kennedy isn't a very good example. He was healthy and active when he was re-elected in 2006; he developed a brain tumor, which isn't necessarily a disease of aging (the same thing could happen to a much younger Senator). Perhaps there should be a mandatory health exam for all incoming Senators and Congressmen?

Voters cant have all they want either, like sending representative who are half alive.

Why not? At various times voters have purposefully elected people who are dead. Where do you draw the line at who people can and cannot vote for?

[AROCES]

What you're talking about is an age limit. If someone can still run for their first term when they're, say, 90 then you still face the possibility of a politician with serious health problems. Besides, Kennedy isn't a very good example. He was healthy and active when he was re-elected in 2006; he developed a brain tumor, which isn't necessarily a disease of aging (the same thing could happen to a much younger Senator). Perhaps there should be a mandatory health exam for all incoming Senators and Congressmen?

Why not? At various times voters have purposefully elected people who are dead. Where do you draw the line at who people can and cannot vote for?

Nope, even before 2006 Kennedy already look like an aging dinosaur in there in my opinion, when he speaks he is just repeating what he been saying for the past 50 years. We need fresh new ideas, right?

Age comes up with anyone, even in politics.

[Startraveler]

when he speaks he is just repeating what he been saying for the past 50 years. We need fresh new ideas, right?

But that could just as easily be interpreted as an argument for a long tenure. If someone pushes for an idea for decades because that idea hasn't been implemented, that suggests some ideas take a long time to come to fruition (Kennedy's signature cause, universal health care, has been around in the U.S. for sixty-odd years). The alternative is to replace people with principles and ideas that are in it for the long haul with people more attuned to passing popular whims. We certainly get plenty of those already: term limits might serve only to eliminate long term thinking (which is already significantly impaired in Congress) where it exists.

[Startraveler]

On a related (to this thread) note, this week Robert Byrd is going to become the longest serving member of Congress ever. He's been around so long he actually helped filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On the other hand, he's done a lot for a pretty poor state.