When the
Constitution of the United States was adopted in 1789, it was without direction
regarding term limits for legislators.
At the time, professional politicians were unheard of, and the idea of
someone serving for more than one or two terms was unlikely. So the Constitution did not formally address
the issue of term limits, although it was understood that officeholders would
limit themselves to one or two terms and then return to private life (1). With the advent of the modern state, however,
came the making of Congress as a career, and thus the voluntary removal of
oneself from office, as envisioned by the founders, is no longer regularly
undertaken in the United States
Congress.
The structure of the Congress supports members who have held office for
several terms thereby undermining the idea of the citizen-legislator put forth
by the founders. Instead of citizens who
will soon return to the community that elected them, professional
Congress-people spend more time in Washington than in their home states, and
usually make Congress their career. What
has developed in recent years, in response to congressional careerism, is the
drive to impose limits on the length of time someone may serve in Congress. Currently, advocates of term limits are calling
for two terms in the Senate, and three in the House. It is possible, then, for a member to serve
six years in the House, twelve years in the Senate, eight years as Vice
President, and eight years as President, a total of thirty-six years. It is not unlikely, therefore, that there
will continue to be career politicians.
The issue is not about total time that one may participate in
government, rather it is about how long one may serve in a particular capacity. Term limits enjoy popular, but not political,
support, thereby polarizing the electorate and the elected. This paper will discuss the popular support
for term limits, the arguments on both sides, and draw conclusions about the
need for Congressional term limits in the United States
Support for term
limits encompasses close to three-quarters of the American population (2). The question is why. The simple answer is that the American people
no longer trust a system they view as corrupt and biased towards the few. But the issue is really not this simple, nor
is its basis of support. While on the
surface it is corruption and bias that feed the resolve for limits,
underneath it is too complex an issue to
describe so succinctly. Rather the issue
includes Congressional scandals, allegations of bribery and sexual harassment,
questionable campaign contributions, and Congressional perks such as
no-interest loans and free, reserved parking at the airport (3). "To many, it seem[s] that one reason
Congress ha[s] lost touch with ordinary people [is] because so many members
[are] in Congress too long." (4)
According to Ed Crane of the Cato Institute,
"Americans
want to open up the political process.
They want their fellow citizens who live and work in the real world --
the private sector -- to represent them.
Not career legislators... It would allow good people from across the
political spectrum to...participate in the political process as candidates,
even if they happen to have spent most of their life outside the limelight in
the private sector like the rest of us." (5)
Clearly voters
support term limits for a variety of reasons, yet these reasons all share a
common feature: the desire for a more competitive electoral process, and the
hope that term limits will also limit corruption.
The strength of public support for term limits
can be seen in the fact that several states voted to limit the length of time
their representatives can serve in Congress.
By the middle of 1995, almost half of the states had limited the number
of terms for their representatives. This
success of the term limit movement at the grass roots level faced a serious
setback when the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 majority that such restrictions
were unconstitutional. They argued that
"allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for Congress
would thus erode the structure envisioned by the Framers, a structure that was
designed...to form a 'more perfect union'."(6) The citizens and the state are at the mercy,
therefore, of Congress in terms of implementing limits.
Congress must
decide to amend the Constitution. Since
members of Congress face a conflict of interest on the issue of term limits,
supporters of this initiative are going to have to become more creative in
their lobbying. An example of how states
may be able to get around this decision is the idea that state representatives
be asked to sign a statement regarding their support of term limits for
Congress. Those representatives who do
not sign or agree to work towards term limits will have a notation beside their
name in the next election cycle that indicates their disregard for public
opinion.
Term limits is a
policy that has a base of endorsement in two important ways. First, it already has the support of the
American people, and second, it is an unofficial policy that has its roots in
the Articles of Confederation, if not the Constitution. Unfortunately, however these arguments alone
are not enough to compel career legislators to adopt term limits. There are several other key arguments in
favor of term limits that may prove persuasive in the long run.
The power of incumbents in Congress is
considered a reflection of the professionalization of politics. It is all but impossible for challengers to
win against incumbents in the race for Congressional seats. The professionalization of politics has
"enhanced the electoral advantages of careerists" (7), or
incumbents. Conversely, "every
enhancement of the power of incumbency exacerbates careerism"(8). So a cycle is created wherein career politicians
are more likely to get elected thereby encouraging politicians to become
careerists. "Given the power of
incumbency, proponents of term limits argue that election to Congress, in
essence, equals life tenure." (9)
When the triumph
of incumbency is coupled with the seniority system that assigns positions of
power based on length of service it creates an environment where voters are
afraid not to re-elect their representative in case their state loses
power. Ironically, the more senior a
member becomes, the less representative of his electorate and the more
representative of special interests he becomes. One need only look at Senator
Thurmon who has been in office since before Pearl Harbor. He is 93 years old and is already the oldest
serving Senator ever. As Chair of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, his position is important to his home state of
South Carolina - a state with a large defense industry (10). He is consistently re-elected because of his
senior status within the Senate. It is
all but impossible for a candidate to launch a serious campaign against
Thurmon, as no one is South Carolina wants to lose the power his Chairmanship
brings. Advocates argue that term limits
will destroy the system of seniority and replace it with a system of meritocracy
(11). Since legislators will be serving
a limited time, it is more likely that they will adhere to the desires of their
constituents since they will soon be returning to live among them.
Opponents argue
that limits already exist in the form of
the electoral process. People who do not
feel their representative is doing an adequate job can simply vote for someone
else. Incumbents are as likely as any
other candidate not to get elected. The
argument continues with the idea that term limits will mean a loss of
experience on the part of legislators.(12)
Because one serves in Congress for a potentially unlimited time,
representatives are more likely to "know about the rules, routines, and
procedures that are essential to survival in Congress...[and] may also know a
great deal about how to use the federal bureaucracy to serve their
constituents." (13) Incumbents,
therefore, are necessary for Congress to run smoothly.
The argument that
representatives must be in place for a long time in order to fully appreciate
how to get things done is inherently flawed.
The reason longer service in Congress is necessary now is that there are
no limits to terms. Therefore, Congress
is controlled by its most powerful (or longest standing) members. Term limits would remove the possibility of a
seniority system and the advantages of incumbency thus creating conditions of equality between member of
Congress.
The incumbency
and seniority systems have created conditions whereby leadership positions
"are peopled exclusively by white males" (14). Women and minorities are underrepresented not
only in actual numbers in Congress, but also in terms of leadership. Term limits would create more competitive
elections and thus allow more women and minorities the opportunity for
election. The system as it currently
exists discourages minorities from entering a race because in a majority of
seats the incumbent wins. Since the
newcomers are not given the financial support of an incumbent, candidates must
either be independently wealthy of stay out of the race (15).
Critics argue
that there is considerable turnover at each election without the imposition of
term limits, and that talented people will not seek office unless their
political career possibilities are long-term (16). It is difficult to counter
the idea that women and minorities are underrepresented or that these groups
would benefit from more competitive elections.
Rather, the focus is on the inevitability of professional politicians
and careerism as a logical by-product of the electoral system; a product that should simply be accepted by the people
with no attempt to change it. This
argument avoids the issues of minority representation and incumbency advantages
and attempts to divert attention away from the fact that minorities do not play
an equal or even proportional role in Congress.
Proponents of
term limits argue for a return to citizen-legislators. "With the professionalization of
American politics, instead of public engagement, we end up with public estrangement;
instead of civic commitment, we foster civic abandonment; and instead of
political empowerment, we are left with political confinement." (17) A citizen-legislator is someone who has a
career in the private sector, spends a relatively short time in the public eye
and then returns home to live among his constituents again. Since the senior members of Congress are most
likely to be influenced by special interests, and are removed from the people
they represent, it can be argued that the citizen-legislator will behave in the
opposite manner. The short-term member
will likely pass fewer laws, and the laws he does support will be more
reflective of his constituents' desires (18).
Critics argue
that term limits would cause legislators to ignore their constituents during
their final terms, and that limits would simple shift power from the incumbents
to the staff members and the lobbyists (19).
This shift would take power from those elected and give it a non-partisan
bureaucracy. New members would be at the
mercy of their staff, and be crippled by their own inexperience.
It is highly unlikely that a member soon
returning to live again in the community that elected him would ignore what his
constituents wanted, or become so far removed from them that he was unaware of
their needs. In terms of the power shift
"any Capitol Hill observer knows that it's the most senior members who are
most dependent on staff and lobbyists, not the hot-shot young freshmen."
(20) Therefore, Representatives serving a limited number of
terms are not likely to rely on their staffs to the extent that incumbents do
currently, thereby eliminating the fear that permanent staff members will
really be running the country.
Additionally, senior members currently seek to remain in Washington when
they are no longer in office by locating a position as a lobbyists or
bureaucrat. With term limits this is
also unlikely to happen "because the turnover on Capitol Hill will quickly
make their contacts obsolete and their influence limited." (21)
It can be argued
that the term limits initiative is a solution looking for a problem. Yet, it can also be argued that term limits
is an issue whose time is now. While
term limits may not solve all that is wrong with the American system, it certainly
is a step in the right direction. The
system as is currently exists is rife with rank and privilege. In Congress, all members are supposedly
equal, yet it is quite obvious that some
are more equal than others.
Not only is the
privlege of senior members a problem, but it also the perceived corruption that
goes along with it. As people see their
legislators moving farther away from them and closer to special interests it is
easy to become disillusioned with the system.
Because representatives are
constantly aware or the need for re-election they will often support bills that
specifically help their state and in doing so appease the public enough to
ensure their re-election bid. But is
this truly governing? According to
Ehrenhalt,
"Politics
is, then, more than in the past, a job for people who prefer it to any other
line of work. About these people one
more important point should be made: They tend not only to enjoy politics but
to believe in government as an institution.
The more somebody is required to sacrifice time and money and private
life to run for the city council, for the state legislature, or for Congress,
the more important it is for that person to believe that government is a
respectable enterprise with crucial work to do." (22)
With term limits,
politics will not be about a career.
Rather, it will be about a genuine intent to foster change. Term limits will government a respectable and
approachable institution for all people.
What term limits may accomplish, then is a leveling
of the playing field and the invitation for all to come play. A representative government must reflect the
people it represents. This is not to say
that the Congress must adopt a policy of affirmative action in order to have
equal representation of women and minorities, rather Congress must adopt term limits in order to
foster competition and creativity in its members and its electoral
process.
When somewhere
near seventy-five percent of a population supports an initiative, it would seem
to be good government that would support it.
But when that initiative infringes on the length of time a member may
serve in Congress it becomes a conflict of interest that is unlikely to be
passed. The very structure of Congress
itself encourages members to seek re-election for several terms by rewarding
the most senior members with positions of power and influence. This makes incumbent politicians very
difficult to beat in an election, and it ensures that the most powerful people
in the nation will continue to be white males.
But white males do not reflect the cultural and ethnic make up of the
United States. Nor do they represent the
many and varied interests of their constituents. Term limits would make it very difficult for
one cultural group to control the government.
By fostering competition and by creating a system where representatives
must soon become the represented again, term limits set up a more
representative and equitable governing body.
In addition, with the removal of seniority one gets meritocracy; with
the citizen-legislator one becomes more aware of his constituents' needs, as he
is never far from returning to them; with competition the United States
Congress can be held up as a truly representative arm of government that
includes women, minorities, and white men in equally powerful positions. "Whose government is it anyway? With
term limits, it's [the people's]." (23)
Endnotes
1 Fund, John H. "Term Limitations: An Idea
Whose Time Has Come" Policy Analysis No. 141 October 30, 1996
2 Editorial "Senate Tackles Term
Limits" The Boston Herald April 23,
1996
3 Levine, Herbert M. Point-Counterpoint: Reading in American
Government St.Martin's Press, New York:
1995. 208
4 ibid, 208
5 Crane, Ed
"Campaign Reforms vs. Term Limits" The Washington Times June 26, 1996
6 Bandow, Doug
"The Political Revolution That Wasn't: Why Term Limits Are Needed
Now More Than Ever" Policy Analysis
No. 259 September 5, 1996
7 ibid
8 Levine, 209
9 O'Connor, Karen and Larry J. Sabato American Government: Roots and Reform Allyn and Bacon, Massachusetts. 1996.
198
10 "Thurmon-ator Looks Good to Break
Senate Records" Time November 2,
1996
11 Petracca, Mark "The Poison of
Professional Politics" Policy Analysis
No. 151 May 10, 1991
12 Bandow
13 Petracca
14 Ferry, Jonathan "Women Minorities and Term Limits:
America's Path to a Representative Congress" U.S. Term Limits Foundation Outlook Series Vol 3, No 2.
July, 1994
15 ibid
16 Levine, 210
17 Petracca
18 Fund
19 ibid
20 ibid
21 ibid
22 Ehrenhalt, Alan The United States of Ambition: Politicians,
Power, and the Pursuit of Office Random
House, New York. 1991: 20
23 Jacob, Paul
"Whose Government is it Anyway?" this article will appear in the Journal of
the West Los Angeles School of Law.
Bibliography
AllPolitics -
Ballots By States "Ballot Measures by State" October 30, 1996 www.allpolitics.ca
AllPolitics -
Term Limits Debate "Term Limits
Stall in Senate" April 23, 1996
www.allpolitics.ca
AllPolitics -
South Carolina Senate Race "Thurmon-ator Looks Good to Break Senate
Records" November 2, 1996 Found at www.allpolitics.ca
Bandow, Doug "Bias for Incumbents" The Washington Times October 17, 1996 www.washtimes-weekly.com/wash_times
Bandow, Doug "The Political Revolution that
Wasn't: Why Term Limits are Needed Now
More Than Ever" Policy Analysis No.
259 September 5, 1996 www.cato.org/pubs/policyanalysis.html
"Senate
Tackles Term Limits" The Boston
Herald April 23, 1996 www.termlimits.org/index.shtml
Crane, Ed "Campaign Reforms Vs. Term
Limits" The Washington Times June 26, 1996
www.washtimes_weekly.com
Ehrenhalt,
Alan The United States of Ambition: Politicians, Power, and the Pursuit of
Office Random House, New York. 1991
Ferry,
Jonathan "Women, Minorities and
Term Limits: America's Path to a
Representative Congress" U.S. Term
Limits Foundation Outlook Series July,
1994 Vol.3 No.2
www.termlimits.org/index.shtml
Fund, John H "Term Limitation: An Idea Whose Time Has Come" Policy Analysis No. 141 October 30, 1990 www.cato.org/pubs/pas/policyanalysis.html
"Term Limits
Excellent New Strategy" The Florida
Times Union October 1, 1996 www.termlimits.org/index.shtml
Jacob, Paul "Choosing Term Limits" The Washington Times August 7, 1996 www.termlimits.org
Jacob, Paul
"Whose Government is it Anyway?"
www.termlimits.org/index.shtml
Kolbe, John "Term Limits Sledgehammer" Phoenix Gazette June 7, 1996
www.termlimits.org
Levine, Herbert
M. Point-Counterpoint: Readings in American Government St. Martin's Press, New York. 1995
Nelson,
Lars-Erik "A Very Special Class of
Federal Employee" The Washington
Post January 5, 1996
www.termlimits.org/index.shtml
O'Connor, Karen
and Larry J. Sabato American
Government: Roots and Reform Allyn and Bacon, Massachusetts. 1996
Petracca,
Mark "The Poison of Professional
Politics" Policy Analysis No. 151
May 10, 1996
www.cato.org/pubs/pas/policyanalysis..html
No comments:
Post a Comment