"Term Limits - Another Look"
Sydney M. Williams
(Not being a Poe or an O’Henry and to avoid any surprise, I am a strong proponent for term limits.)
Under the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified in 1781 and lasted until 1789, according to Richard Brookhiser, in his new book James Madison, term limits were in place for members of that Congress. No member could serve more than three years out of six. When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, establishing the three branches of our current government, term limits were not mentioned. George Washington established the principle of a President serving no more than two terms. Most, but not all, of those in Congress considered themselves citizen politicians, serving in Washington, before returning home.
The standard for the President set by George Washington lasted for one hundred and forty-four years, until Franklin Roosevelt ran and won a third term in 1940. Eleven years later, in 1951, Congress ratified the 22nd Amendment, which held that no person could be elected more than twice and could serve no more than ten years as President. The subject of term limits for Congress has been frequently discussed and debated. Given the very low Congressional approval ratings, the issue has become a hot button once again.
The principal arguments against term limits are several. First, they would seemingly violate the principle of free choice, including the opportunity to vote for a serving member of Congress, if that person had reached their term. Second, term limits would kick out the good with bad. Third, every job has a learning curve and experience and contacts are valuable. Fourth, a congressman in their last term in office may choose to act willfully. And fifth, term limits would not necessarily resolve the rancor so prevalent in today’s Washington.
As for the first argument, the fact that about 85% of incumbents are re-elected, suggests voters are already denied adequate choices. The second argument presupposes there is a dearth of good people. That seems unlikely, as each Congressman represents approximately 900,000 people, among whom there must be a few good women and men willing to join (as Mark Twain would say) the criminal class, commonly known as Congress. As for the third point, there is little doubt that experience and contacts are of value, as most Congressmen have discovered to their financial advantage, while trolling from their respective offices. That doesn’t make the blessing of experience or contacts necessarily desirable. The fourth argument makes the assumption that those in Congress must have morals lower than even I imagine. Perhaps that it is true and it wouldn’t surprise me, but that is no reason to stay with the old when one can go with the new. As for the fifth, it is impossible to know if the level of dissonance would persist or desist. But with approval numbers in the teens, there would seem to be limited downside.
It is true that the Speaker of the House is third in line to be President, but given some of our recent Speakers that lends little comfort to the existing system. The idea of a President Pelosi would be enough to make my hair curl, if that weren’t its natural condition. Besides which, in 222 years there has been only one Speaker who became President – Gerald Ford.
The arguments in favor of term limits are more convincing, in my opinion. The current system has fostered a class of political operatives who have become distanced from the people they supposedly represent. The gerrymandering of districts virtually assures their re-election. The combining of lobbyists’ money and legislative power has been used for years to serve the special needs of members of Congress, at the expense of the people. Term limits would introduce new blood and fresh competition. It would send Senators and Representatives home to live in the real world. Their subsequent influence would be lessened, as many of the people they once knew would be gone as well. Corruption would not be eliminated, but it would not likely increase. While term limits might serve to increase the power of the staff and bureaucracy, it is more likely there would be less wasteful spending. Smaller government and lower taxes should result. The universe of people having served in Congress would expand, benefitting the rest of us and the country.
Much of the current clamor for term limits is due to the way our system has devolved. Sour milk, not the cream, has risen to the top of the bucket. Perhaps it is the time in which we live. Perhaps it is inevitable, but I have heard nothing to suggest not imposing term limits would be a good thing, other than for those members of Congress who would be forced to find real jobs.
On Wednesday evening I listened to a debate between MIT and Smith College on the subject of term limits. The subject, resolved: “This House would impose term limits for the Senate and the House.” Speaking in proposition was MIT; speaking in opposition was Smith College. In my limited (and long ago) experience in debate, I always found it easier and more fun to argue in opposition, and perhaps that is why I found Smith College out-debating their MIT rivals. Nevertheless, it was disappointing that the engineers did not argue more convincingly, for I am sure they had the correct side. Regardless, term limits should be imposed.
Thought of the Day
“Term Limits – Another Look”
November 11, 2011“Term Limits – Another Look”
(Not being a Poe or an O’Henry and to avoid any surprise, I am a strong proponent for term limits.)
Under the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified in 1781 and lasted until 1789, according to Richard Brookhiser, in his new book James Madison, term limits were in place for members of that Congress. No member could serve more than three years out of six. When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, establishing the three branches of our current government, term limits were not mentioned. George Washington established the principle of a President serving no more than two terms. Most, but not all, of those in Congress considered themselves citizen politicians, serving in Washington, before returning home.
The standard for the President set by George Washington lasted for one hundred and forty-four years, until Franklin Roosevelt ran and won a third term in 1940. Eleven years later, in 1951, Congress ratified the 22nd Amendment, which held that no person could be elected more than twice and could serve no more than ten years as President. The subject of term limits for Congress has been frequently discussed and debated. Given the very low Congressional approval ratings, the issue has become a hot button once again.
The principal arguments against term limits are several. First, they would seemingly violate the principle of free choice, including the opportunity to vote for a serving member of Congress, if that person had reached their term. Second, term limits would kick out the good with bad. Third, every job has a learning curve and experience and contacts are valuable. Fourth, a congressman in their last term in office may choose to act willfully. And fifth, term limits would not necessarily resolve the rancor so prevalent in today’s Washington.
As for the first argument, the fact that about 85% of incumbents are re-elected, suggests voters are already denied adequate choices. The second argument presupposes there is a dearth of good people. That seems unlikely, as each Congressman represents approximately 900,000 people, among whom there must be a few good women and men willing to join (as Mark Twain would say) the criminal class, commonly known as Congress. As for the third point, there is little doubt that experience and contacts are of value, as most Congressmen have discovered to their financial advantage, while trolling from their respective offices. That doesn’t make the blessing of experience or contacts necessarily desirable. The fourth argument makes the assumption that those in Congress must have morals lower than even I imagine. Perhaps that it is true and it wouldn’t surprise me, but that is no reason to stay with the old when one can go with the new. As for the fifth, it is impossible to know if the level of dissonance would persist or desist. But with approval numbers in the teens, there would seem to be limited downside.
It is true that the Speaker of the House is third in line to be President, but given some of our recent Speakers that lends little comfort to the existing system. The idea of a President Pelosi would be enough to make my hair curl, if that weren’t its natural condition. Besides which, in 222 years there has been only one Speaker who became President – Gerald Ford.
The arguments in favor of term limits are more convincing, in my opinion. The current system has fostered a class of political operatives who have become distanced from the people they supposedly represent. The gerrymandering of districts virtually assures their re-election. The combining of lobbyists’ money and legislative power has been used for years to serve the special needs of members of Congress, at the expense of the people. Term limits would introduce new blood and fresh competition. It would send Senators and Representatives home to live in the real world. Their subsequent influence would be lessened, as many of the people they once knew would be gone as well. Corruption would not be eliminated, but it would not likely increase. While term limits might serve to increase the power of the staff and bureaucracy, it is more likely there would be less wasteful spending. Smaller government and lower taxes should result. The universe of people having served in Congress would expand, benefitting the rest of us and the country.
Much of the current clamor for term limits is due to the way our system has devolved. Sour milk, not the cream, has risen to the top of the bucket. Perhaps it is the time in which we live. Perhaps it is inevitable, but I have heard nothing to suggest not imposing term limits would be a good thing, other than for those members of Congress who would be forced to find real jobs.
……………………………………………………………………
On Wednesday evening I listened to a debate between MIT and Smith College on the subject of term limits. The subject, resolved: “This House would impose term limits for the Senate and the House.” Speaking in proposition was MIT; speaking in opposition was Smith College. In my limited (and long ago) experience in debate, I always found it easier and more fun to argue in opposition, and perhaps that is why I found Smith College out-debating their MIT rivals. Nevertheless, it was disappointing that the engineers did not argue more convincingly, for I am sure they had the correct side. Regardless, term limits should be imposed.
Labels: TOTD
posted by Thought of the Day @ 3:36 AM
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home