One of the consistent refrains I read in this space is that term limits for Congress would be the magic salve to solve all/many/some ills. Here is the opportunity to make your case. (You are welcome to argue the other side as well.) I do have some questions:
- What would be different in terms of the make up of the people willing to run for congressional seats, and why would that population change in a material way because of the influence of congressional term limits?
- What laws would be passed if term limits were the law of the land and why would congressional term limits make the difference?
- What laws would be repealed, or would have never been passed in the first place, if congressional term limits were the law of the land and why?
- What would you expect your “lame duck” Senator or Representative to do during that term of “unaccountability” and why would that “unanswerable” term be good/great for the country?
- Why wouldn’t such a policy attract more unqualified “wannabe entertainers” who are looking to use the prominence of elected office to cash in on appearance fees, books, radio/tv/podcast money? In short, why wouldn’t we get a House of Kardasians?
- Why wouldn’t such a policy only strengthen the hand of lobbyists who would have much greater experience with policy matters and bill drafting than the people who they are lobbying?
- Why wouldn’t such a policy strengthen the hand of unelected bureaucrats who know they will be in place far longer than members of Congress will? Why wouldn’t the policy preferences of bureaucrats have a greater chance at succeeding with congressional term limits in place?
- In short, aren’t we effectively reducing our ability to self-govern if we were to impose congressional term limits?
- Stated in another way, why isn’t an artificial limit on congressional terms a concession that democracy is bad or flawed because people are simply incapable of making rational decisions that are in our own interests? If that’s true, why not scrap the whole experiment and return to some form of an autocracy?
Discuss.
Career politicians serve themselves, their party, their lobbyist friends, and the bloated bureaucracy. Most of these people have never created anything of value, and they should have to go back and live in the world their policies create. They exempt themselves from the same legislation they enact on the rest of us (the exemption from the insider trading provisions of the Securities Acts that would send every one of us to prison is the prime example). That’s why I support term limits.
That may be irrational to you, but it’s not about specific policies at this point. None of these people are going to have to live with the consequences of $35 trillion (and growing) in debt, but my kids, grandkids (someday), and great-grandchildren will.
I remember distinctly what my UGA honors poli-sci professor (who was no conservative) said on the first day of class. “What is an elected official’s primary focus in his or her job? Public service? Represent the constituents who elected him or her? Send money back to the state or district? No. It’s to get reelected.” It’s the only thing I learned in that guy’s class in my first fall quarter at UGA.
Why wouldn’t the same “exemptions” apply in a world with term limits? (I am not stipulating that they are exempt by statute btw. I think that is more of a practical than a literal exemption and one that applies to everyone. The fact that careful crooks and/or rich/powerful crooks get away scot free is nothing new.)
Your professor was right. (Was it Loch?) All they want to do is keep their jobs. We decide whether they do. I don’t know why we should require protection from our own choices.
If someone promoted a law that said: you can’t buy ice cream on Mondays or Tuesdays. Why? Because you are all too effin fat and unless we force you to put down the cone a couple of days a week you’re going to stay fat, that would be considered an interference with our freedoms. And rightly so. We should have the freedom to be stupid, reckless, regrettable, short-sighted and uninformed. The idea that some external force, other than each other, blankets us in some protective shield is part of the problem.
An indictment of self-government as an argument for term limits is not one that convinces me.
I didn’t say my position was rational according to your standard. I think these people should have to go back and live in the world they create and allow the bloated bureaucracy to create.
I have no problem with how it works at the state level. The Georgia General Assembly has to work with the confines of balanced budget requirement and is only in session for certain number of days. The rest of the year they go back to being practicing attorneys, farmers, pharmacists, small business owners, retirees, etc. They have to live in the world they create and have to live among the people they represent.
The Framers never intended Congress to be in session all year long. A Georgia representative had to spend most of the year living with among their constituents instead of in Washington, DC listening to other influences.
We aren’t going to agree on this, and I’m not going to convince you I’m right and you aren’t going to convince me you’re right. The Constitutional amendment process was intended for these type of issues and there’s a reason the bar to amend it is so high.
I’m just attempting to see if a line can be drawn from the idea to any sort of solution. If its not there then the argument isn’t about fixing anything, which is fine. The context I’ve seen the idea here was that it would help the republic in some tangible way. If that’s not the argument and its more about optics or values, thats fine. I don’t know that a compelling argument can be made that state legislators are better at their jobs or any less corrupt btw.
Most career politicians suck. I have no doubt that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Grassley (among others) went to Washington with good intentions. I also think in both cases the country would be better off if they went off to enjoy their very lucrative retirements.
They would (and eventually will) each be replaced by nearly identical politicians in terms of their votes on legislative proposals. I also don’t think that either believe that they are no longer serving the public in the way they initially intended. Delusional or not, my guess is that they find themselves in a better position to do what they came to do than when they started just because they know how the system works. That included dealing with the media, understanding electoral politics, and navigating bureaucracies. Generally, experience is seen as a valuable asset. Why our nation’s business would be an exception to that rule has not been made clear to me.
State legislators at least in Georgia have one thing that keeps them somewhat tied down that the feds don’t have – a balanced budget requirement in the state constitution. I don’t think state legislators are any more competent or less corrupt than their federal counterparts as a whole, but there is also not the same financial motivation to stay in a state legislature that there is at the federal level.
Do you think having politicians in their elected seats in Congress for the last 40 years has helped the republic in some tangible way?
As compared to a term limit scheme, probably, for the reasons I have suggested. A term limit scheme ultimately places more power in the hands of the unelected and unaccountable. I have doubts that they could do things better and moreover, we should be self governing and not ruled by special interests and bureaucrats.
Should some of those pols have been kicked out by their constituents before they got to 40 years? Most definitely. But the voters got what they wanted.
Billingsley not Johnson
I don’t remember the name of anyone in the department except Loch Johnson and Martin Hildebrand. Its been written over on the hard drive…
I support term limits, merely because I don’t want to hear the same blather from the same people again and again. I want to at least hear it in a different voice.
I readily admit that term limits will do little good because the system is designed to corrupt. Even if we do elect good and decent people intent on doing some good for their community in their 4/6/8 years – and the shorter the term the better – there will always be a senior member of the legislature there who can show them how to manipulate the system for their own gain. Or a senior member who will threaten them to ‘get in line’ with the party agenda or they will get nothing passed.
I’m for term limits and the elimination of the current 2 party system. No, it won’t work either, but at least then the Convervatives, Socialists, Thermadorians, Bull Mooses, Racist Assholes, Southern Thinkers, West Coast Hippies, etc will have to out themselves as such instead of hiding behind the guise of Republican or Democrat labels. I’m sick of hearing what a ‘real’ republican or democrat is.
Also, I readily acknowledge that Term Limits go against the will of the people to freely elect their own representatives. And I’m ok with that. Sort of.
It’s the “throw the bums out except for my bum” mentality. I don’t have some belief that Nancy Pelosi’s district is going to be won by a Republican just as I would be surprised to see a Democrat win a deep red district in South Carolina just because of term limits, but I do believe that 20+ year incumbency has a power that prevents anyone from a real challenge.
I would support a 12 year limit for all elected officials – 3 terms for a President, 2 terms for a Senator (although I would go back to state legislatures selecting Senators because that’s one of the many things I believe the Founding Fathers got right) and 6 terms for a Representative.
Leading up to the adoption of the 17th Amendment were a long list of credible allegations that state legislators were being corrupted and picking connected politicians for those seats who were chosen specifically to further the interests of the railroad and oil barons. The people demanded a change and the Senate was the last to cave.
As has been observed:
“Unless I get something real good [for Senate candidate 1], s***, I’ll just send myself, you know what I’m saying?” Blagojevich was taped saying on November 3, the day before Election Day. Blagojevich added that the Senate seat “is a f***ing valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”
How could our fellow citizens do worse?
That’s fair.
Its not “designed to be corrupt.” They know their voters dgaf if they are corrupt. They care deeply that the other guy is or maybe corrupt.
I can murder a man on fifth avenue while talking about how terrible hunter’s crack habit is and the crowd will cheer “lock her up!”
As long as our standards are demonstrably and transparently flexible and inflexible depending upon whether we agree or disagree with the persons politics, we will be taken advantage of by the corrupt.
Imagine a world where cnn paid a 750 million dollar defamation settlement. Imagine a world where Sotomayor is traveling the globe on George Soros’ dime and she tells no one.
The outrage would be ear splitting. But under THESE circumstances…. its crickets.
“Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain’t going to do any good; you’re just going to end up with a brand-new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: ‘The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.”
― George Carlin
Well said as usual Mr. Carlin.
Derek, Please stop referring to the USA a democracy, it is not, it is a Republic. A democracy is basically like two wolfs and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.
Its both. Every election save one is determined by the number of votes. That’s called democracy.
The Senate is definitely not that. The House is. So its both.
“Read the Constitution for a change. The Founders actually had the Senate appointed by the States not elected. They were patterned AFTER THE House OF LORDS to protect the nation from the rabble (House of Representatives, Parliament). Ever since the modern era the politicians have done their best to screw up the Founding Fathers masterpiece. The amendment to popularly elect the Senate, which for all intents and purposes is redundant now. Why have two popularly elected bodies? I guess it’s just to spread the wealth. FDR with his attempt to pack the court, a thing that both parties want every time the Supremes don’t go their way. Now the absolutely unmitigated gall to want term limits on the Supremes when they will never willingly allow them on the legislative branch. The constant bitching about the Electoral College, etc. I guess you think it’s great to have politicians who become millionaires while in public service just because their voters want them to bring home the pork. Pork barrel politics are the way things are run in this country and it’s why eventually we will be bankrupt.
“Hallelujah! Holy shit! Where’s the Tylenol…”
And the American people followed the Founders means of amending it. Like abolishing slavery. Women’s suffrage. They didn’t think they were Gods. Jefferson would be shocked at the low number of amendments.
You still think Politicians are elected by the people… thats cute.
Yep. And every so often an electoral college which is connected to votes.
I would like to know why political parties, the very rich, corporations and self-funded candidates spend their money on advertising to influence voters if voters don’t matter. TV, youtube, facebook and radio folks must have something on the government given that only they profit from the false notion that elections occur. I suppose the pols could ban advertising, but then no one would be “cute” anymore because we’d all be “in the know!”
I am aware well in advance that your answer will be adorable, among other things.
Wow…you don;t get out much do ya?
Joseph Stalin – It’s Not Who Votes That Counts, It’s Who Counts The Votes…Maybe if he was on cnn or msnbc you would believe him,,,
Everyone knows about Stalin’s fundraising and ad campaigns. He had to keep up with the opposition party you know. If you are aware of that you are naive and stuff.
https://x.com/i/status/1821664504872059333
I think everyone is repulsed by the current state of affairs in Washington. Every person I know is worried sick about the fact that Congress has no ability, it seems, to even act like it will address its own excess.
The only thing I can think of that might help is financial reform so elected officials cannot enrich themselves. As it is the temptation is just too much. Term limits without addressing the financial aspects of congressional reform won’t do it.
Let me ask about this issue in a similar way to term limits:
If members of congress only wanted to be re-elected and everything they had was placed into trust and they could not profit a dime during their tenures, (you leave with what you showed up with and no more), what would really change in a substantive way? We might trust them more, but would them policies actually shift in some beneficial way?
I don’t disagree that trust and credibility are important in a democracy. The inherent risk there is that people no longer value the process or the results.
However, in terms of the actual condition of the country I don’t know how much “honest” politicians would move the needle.
While no doubt the worst sort of person and one who should be put away, the number of pols who do an official AND consequential act for $ and would have done something else without the bribe or pay off, is likely very low.
I am not suggesting that stealing tax dollars is inconsequential. It happens for sure, but pocketing a 150k grant intended for X, while a serious felony, has not changed our lives in any meaningful way.
Compare that sort of common thievery and graft to say invading Iraq. No one paid anyone to sell that idea. They believed it was a good idea even if they knew it was hoisted upon lies or shaky info. Far more consequential and with no discernible personal financial motivation that I am aware of.
We the people could have stopped that before it happened and we chose not to. Chasing rabbits like a “clean” government and solutions that we know won’t change anything for the better, are imho avoiding ideas that might actually help. For example, if we had a more informed, engaged, discerning and responsible electorate wouldn’t that move the needle?
“Compare that sort of common thievery and graft to say invading Iraq”
Off subject some, but pertaining to Nation State level fuckery… Didn’t the Saudi’s pony up an umpty billion dollar defense contract to GHWB’s administration because Iraq was getting uppity and that’s how the whole thing got started?
Annie Jacobsen says in her book that Bin Laden offered protection (For a fee, of course) but they already had the USA on retainer so they politely told him to go fuck a camel and THAT was the reason he started jihad on the US.
If you follow “follow the money” ? Could be plausible, I guess.
Not following that. I do know that Iraq invading Kuwait was and remains curious. That led to airbases in the Kingdom and earned Bin Laden’s permanent hostility. Whether any of that was avoidable is way above my pay grade.
But you don’t have to know much to reject preemptive invasion 12 years later. The idea that you can invade on a possibility of having a good reason later is not only immoral, its dumb.
‘Zactly. The book is “Suprise, Kill, Vanish”. It’s worth a read if you haven’t already.
Why are we discussing politics here? This should be: of the Dawgs, by the Dawgs, and for the Dawgs