The implicit argument is that Washington, with its corrosive practices, corrupts even the most well-intentioned lawmakers. Because of this, the best—and maybe only—form of inoculation is to limit, constitutionally, the time elected officials can spend in power.
Much of the term-limit reasoning makes sense. However, it ignores the very real downsides that would result. Despite widespread support, instituting term limits would have numerous negative consequences for Congress. Binder and Molly E. Reynolds Friday, August 27, Take power away from voters: Perhaps the most obvious consequence of establishing congressional term limits is that it would severely curtail the choices of voters.
A fundamental principle in our system of government is that voters get to choose their representatives. Voter choices are restricted when a candidate is barred from being on the ballot. Severely decrease congressional capacity: Policymaking is a profession in and of itself.
Our system tasks lawmakers with creating solutions to pressing societal problems, often with no simple answers and huge likelihoods for unintended consequences. Crafting legislative proposals is a learned skill; as in other professions, experience matters. In fact, as expert analysis has shown with the recently passed Senate tax bill, policy crafted by even the most experienced of lawmakers is likely to have ambiguous provisions and loopholes that undermine the intended effects of the legislation.
It's a nice fantasy that what Washington needs is a bunch of good old-fashioned common sense — common sense that can only come from people who aren't "career politicians. And the more we cling to the fantasy of electing uncorrupted political neophytes as saviors, the more we empower the lobbyists and bureaucrats who can accumulate a lifetime of experience and knowledge.
This is why, for example, I've argued that the best way to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington is for Congress to invest in its long-term professional staffing capacity. The same logic applies if Congress wants to reassert its authority as the first branch. As for the value of experience, it's worth noting that Trump's language about "draining the swamp" is exactly the same phrasing that former Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi used 10 years ago, back in , when Democrats were poised to win back the House.
At the time, Pelosi said she would "drain the swamp" and promised new rules to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation. A career politician might have been experienced enough to remember that. A career politician might also have known that the reforms Democrats passed, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, actually did slow the revolving door.
But as far anybody can tell, its minor tweaks to the revolving door did absolutely nothing to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington — again, because lobbyists' influence comes primarily from the fact that congressional staffers depend on lobbyists to make sense of policy.
Of course, experience should tell me that it's unlikely we will end the "drain the swamp" fantasy anytime and collectively embrace the necessity of political experience in effective policymaking. But here's hoping. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding.
Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today to help us keep our work free for all.
For the first 80 years of our country, however, few members of Congress served more than two terms. But after the Civil War , this changed. Congress organized permanent committees, which were chaired by the members with the most seniority. From then on, the longer a senator or representative served in Congress, the more powerful he or she became. Many members of Congress started serving long careers. Ironically, the first successful federal term limits were not aimed at career politicians in Congress.
They were directed at the president. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt had managed to get elected to four terms. This placed a two-term limit on the president. Attempts to impose term limits on Congress failed at this time. Much of current demand for term limits is a reaction against the continuing re-election of career politicians. In the House of Representatives , the re-election rate for incumbents has been over 90 percent. High re-election rates may simply mean voters are satisfied with their senators and representatives.
But it also may mean incumbents have many advantages over their rivals. They have greater name recognition, an office staff paid by the taxpayers, and mailing privileges. They also find it easier to raise large amounts of campaign money from special-interest groups seeking favorable legislation. This is especially true when an incumbent senator or representative chairs an important congressional committee.
In , California voters approved a ballot proposition that capped terms in the state Assembly to a total of six years and terms in the state Senate to eight. These are lifetime limits, although a member of one house who reaches the limit there can run for the other house or for federal office. Since , a total of 18 states have adopted state legislative term limits.
In , the Supreme Court ruled in U. Before FDR, eighteen presidents had served no more than a single term. Only eight served two full terms, and only two sought a third term—Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson—both of whom were soundly rejected by the voters. Aside from these three progressives, none of the other twenty-eight presidents would have been affected by term limits.
But what about the thirteen presidents since? Eisenhower and Reagan both supported its repeal, but each was older than any previous president, andthe health of each was fading. Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson retired after his first full term, and Nixon resigned.
Ford, Carter, and Bush were defeated in their reelection bids. Clinton had just been impeached, and his vice president lost the following election—likely similar to a prospective Clinton campaign. George W. Obama, however, still had youth, health, and a majority approval rating at the end of his second term. After FDR, Obama was the only president likely to have served a third term.
0コメント