Republican’s term limits proposal is dumb, undemocratic
It's catching fire online but a House member's plan to impose congressional term limits is idiotic. Here's why
Topics: Arizona, Republican, Congress, Democracy, Editor's Picks, Elections News, Politics News
While catching fire in conservative circles this week, a constitutional amendment proposed by Republican Matt Salmon to impose congressional term limits is a terrible solution to a non-problem. Republicans used to love term limits, when they believed that incumbency advantages were depriving them of what they thought was a deserved majority in Congress. Once they won control of the House and Senate in the mid-1990s, most Republicans promptly forgot about the idea. But some die-hards are still pushing it, and this week Salmon called for limiting politicians to a maximum of six years in the House and 12 in the Senate.
It’s just as bad an idea now as ever.
Just to briefly remind everyone why it’s such a bad idea, it really comes down to this: The federal government is going to develop policies. Liberal policies, conservative policies, whatever: The government will develop and carry out choices about public policy. Each of these choices winds up being a struggle among a whole lot of players: the president; members of the House and the Senate; the political parties; interest groups; the permanent bureaucracy in executive branch departments and agencies.
So what do term limits do? Term limits have one simple effect: They weaken one set of those players. The one set of players who have the strongest reason to care what ordinary voters think. The one set of players who at least to some extent live out in the rest of the nation, and not in Washington.
Sure, politicians who are term-limited might be even more likely to keep their primary residencies in Chicago and Dallas and Altoona instead of Washington, DC. But so what? Keeping representatives just like their constituents means they’ll also be just as … well, I’ll put it bluntly. It would keep representatives just as ignorant of the issues, and of how to get things done, as most constituents are.
Again, that wouldn’t mean that the policies adopted in such a system would be closer to what most voters want; they would be closer to what bureaucrats want, and to what interest groups with strong Washington presences want. It would hardly mean smaller government; bureaucrats, whatever their other virtues, have never been known to inherently support smaller government.
Besides, recent Congresses have had rapid turnover anyway, with several “wave” elections and unusually high retirements from the Senate. The current Congress is far from stagnant.
Jonathan Bernstein writes at a Plain Blog About Politics. Follow him at @jbplainblog More Jonathan Bernstein.





Rick Perry Levels Targets With An AR-15 In His NRA Intro Video
FBI Soliciting Benghazi Tips With New Arabic-Language Video
Joe Biden Loves John McCain
Biden Promises Better Protection For American Embassies
Comments
60 Comments