The case against term limits

Intro

Momentum for term limiting Members of Congress has been building for several years. Republicans tend to be its most avid proponents, frequently disparaging “career politicians” as out of touch, motivated by self-interest, or consumed with their re-election efforts. It even became a signature rallying cry for the Tea Party movement around 2010 in its push against “the establishment” (a term still in circulation yet largely undefined).

This view is not without reason. Certainly many senators and representatives have passed through the halls of Congress without any serious intention of serving the country and their constituents with integrity. Others went to Washington with good intentions but were quickly distracted. Yet, somehow they continued to be re-elected.

I fully acknowledge the risks of sending politicians to Congress for multiple terms. So long as humans occupy positions of power, there will be a risk of corruption, conflicts of interest, and other manifestations of character deterioration.

Despite all of this, I wholeheartedly disagree with efforts to impose term limits for two reasons.

Reason #1 – Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water!

Term limits prevent good great leaders from emerging. These include Members of Congress who not only represent their states and country with deep understanding, conviction, and action but also provide thought leadership that helps define the critical questions of our time and shape the conversations around them.

In many cases, time itself is what equips elected officials with the perspective and temperament to become the leaders we need. Some people are born with a great aptitude to lead, but developing those skills is a matter of experience that builds slowly over years, decades or an entire career.

Not to belittle the importance of fresh perspective and energy that freshmen bring to the legislature, because that will always be needed too. But a proper balance needs to be struck between the two strengths, and the rigidity of term limits prevents the natural balancing of election cycles.

Experience, of course, comes in many forms, but a long tenure in Congress provides a unique and necessary understanding of our country’s history and institutions to guide legislative deliberation. The risk of term limits is erasing institutional knowledge, refined temperament, and visionary leadership that our nation needs to navigate divisive times.

We must deny the cynic in us that assumes that because in some cases time has corrupted some Members of Congress that in all cases time will corrupt all Members of Congress. Anecdotes of wayward career politician, though plenty, are not cause for sweeping actions. Simply kicking them all out would be a bull-in-a-china-shop mentality.

Democracy is a fragile thing. So we can’t forget the stability and foresight brought by statesmen who embody our country’s values and are not afraid to speak truth to power and to the public at large. The ones who personify this image provide great representation for Americans. Forgoing this is the real cost of term limits.

James Madison anticipated the value of these types of elected officials when he presciently wrote in Federalist 53:

[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages.

For all their faults, the lasting value of many career politicians is undeniable.

Where would we be, for example, without the institutional knowledge and profound geopolitical understanding of John McCain’s five-term tenure in the Senate? His experience through a multitude of political seasons built a powerful combination of expertise and empathy that enabled him to speak wise words of leadership at critical moments in our history.

Where would civil rights be in this country if not for Hubert Humphrey forcing the issue of racial equality for 15 years in the Senate?

Conversely, a lack of experience in the public square can limit the impact that Members have. Madison goes on to provide words of caution about the flip side of career politicians:

The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them.

This latter comment reveals the half-baked logic behind term limits in that they only address one side of the ledger. If we force politicians out of office, then what? It won’t necessarily mean their replacements will be any better. More importantly, it does nothing to identify the root cause of why we continue sending poor legislators to Congress in the first place.

Reason #2 – The solution is hiding in plain sight

Our electoral system already provides sufficient levers to hold Congress accountable by removing politicians from office. Restricting this process with term limits would erode our democratic freedom to choose.

The democratic process not only allows but requires us to reassess their performance at regular intervals. If voters disapprove of a politician’s performance, they can limit any further representation by electing someone else, mitigating the need for additional statutory limits.

In this way, elections are a democracy’s natural term limits; they shouldn’t be manipulated just because we disagree with their outcomes.

So what are we really saying when we advocate for term limits?

Given that voters are free to remove politicians from office, it seems that term limit advocates are implicitly arguing one of two things – (1) that fraud or corruption prevent the democratic process from working; or (2) that their views are more important or valuable than the views of the majority of people who vote to re-elect a politician for multiple terms; they’re simply unhappy with the outcome of elections.

I suspect the second reason is more common.

If a politician gets re-elected for multiple terms, do we not have to assume it’s the will of the constituency to sustain his or her tenure?

If those advocating for term limits are truly in the minority of a given election, then their aim is to circumvent the democratic process to favour the minority over the majority, a measure that – if not checked – is quite UNdemocratic.

In this way, we risk limiting democratic freedom by curbing the will of the people to elect politicians of their choosing indefinitely.

Though potentially displeasing to our political tastes, we can’t ignore the core value of each constituency’s right to vote their choice. This is the very definition of democratic elections.

Before criticising our electoral system, we should first look inward.

Politicians are a reflection of us, for better or worse. We put them in office, and we influence their words and actions. So it’s incumbent upon all voters to act with heightened discernment and deliberation when electing politicians.

But all politicians are bad…except for mine!

Looking at this from a different angle, we contradict ourselves if we, on one hand, disapprove of career politicians and, on the other, continue re-electing the career politicians that represent our state or district. In effect, we’re speaking from both sides of our mouths by re-enforcing behaviour that we publicly disapprove of being applied elsewhere.

What about money?

There’s a tactical argument around money that holds merit.

That is, dissenters to my position might argue that politicians with many victories under their belts have likely accumulated a financial war chest that deters newcomers from standing a chance or even entering the race. In this way, a democracy is suppressed.

There is truth in this, and it’s worth further exploration.

But why specifically do we assume money plays such a critical role in elections? I contend that it’s more of a perception problem than reality.

Campaigns at their core are just exercises in spreading a message, often through paid media advertisements. Candidates with money can run more political advertisements.

So it seems that the money argument is implicitly claiming that political advertisements are remarkably effective.

In other words, against our better judgement, we just can’t help ourselves from supporting career politicians into perpetuity, because their advertisements are so compelling. And the only way we can hope to resist is if the candidate is legally obligated to vacate the seat via term limits.

Surely political advertisements aren’t that convincing. If they are, it says far more about us than it does the electoral system.

As much as I despise nearly all political advertisements, the issue of problematic career politicians is not money’s fault. This one is on voters to resist giving in to whatever advertisement is most pleasant or funny or stinging.

Shifting trends

Either way, at a high level, this problem is already taking care of itself through a developing trend in elections. Beto O’Rourke brought it to the forefront in his unsuccessful Senate bid against Sen. Cruz (R-TX) in 2018,  and several of the 2020 presidential candidates are carrying it forward.

That is, voters are beginning to demand that politicians forgo corporate PAC money and rely on small grassroots donations to avoid even the perception of big money influence. If the trend persists, it will naturally level the playing field.

The Earmark exception

My argument against term limits is far more compelling in a world where earmarks continue to be banned in Congress. Otherwise, tenured politicians are especially susceptible to entering the “favour factory” mentality whereby legislative progress is predicated on a quid pro quo practice of trading votes for tax dollars that pay for pet projects that make them look good at home but don’t consider the best interest of the country as a whole. This mindset skews federal priorities and puts scarce taxpayer dollars at risk. It can also look eerily similar to buying votes, all the while leaving out other states/districts who were not so fortunate as to secure the funding, regardless of need.

Conclusion – A way forward

The instincts of term limits advocates are right. Our human nature often causes us to pursue the easiest or most self-interested paths, which is especially problematic if you represent taxpayers. Long-term office holders have the tendency to develop a complacency towards the real purpose of the job and might easily fall prey to corruption.

Nevertheless, term limits are not in the best long-term interest of Congress.

At their best, term limits put a mild check on human nature’s tendency to abuse power. At their worst, they prevent exceptional leadership and suppress the democratic process.

The solution to what we don’t like about career politicians is to make every election count. This means supporting candidates who demonstrate strong leadership and shared values. And if we get it wrong, let’s simply vote for someone else next time around.