One of the goals of many Republicans in recent years is to impose term limits on politicians. Consider the pros and cons.
In the early days of our republic, politics wasn’t considered a profession because in the main politicians were farmers, like 90 percent of the population, and expected to return to the farm when their political work was done. Jefferson thought that agriculture should remain the major source of income for the nation because it made people relatively self-sufficient, self-reliant, and independent.
Politicians were among the wealthier farmers as they alone had the education to understand politics and, by hiring workers or having slaves, the time to engage in it. But staying away from the land for a long time would erode their understanding of what the country needs and degrade even their moral compass. So it was best if they avoided becoming politicians permanently. Jefferson thought they should serve for a time and then go back to the farm.
Term limits were not, however, written into the Constitution. Washington served to two terms and then retired, as did Jefferson and all re-elected successors until Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who died shortly into his fourth term. Roosevelt’s example made many people worry that the presidency could become tyrannical, so the Twenty-Second Amendment was approved in 1951 restricting the president to only two terms, making our tradition a legal requirement. Presidential term limits have so far served us well. Why not extend them to other elected federal officials?
Many people believe that professional politicians tend to serve themselves rather than those who elected them. They tend to lose touch with the needs of the people in their quest for power and prestige within Congress. If they were forced to go back to the people after three or four terms in the House and maybe two terms in the Senate, 20 years at most, they would be replaced by others who have not (yet at any rate) lost their understanding of the average citizen’s perspective.
However, even if term limits are good for the country, they’re difficult to enact because the very people whose power would be reduced by term limits are the ones who would need to approve them if they are ever to become law. This frustrates advocates of term limits.
But are term limits for Congress really a good idea? Do members of Congress develop through long service expertise that serves the country well and would be lost if they were cycled in and out on a regular basis due to term limits? Few people want laws requiring that their dentist, doctor, plumber, electrician, or accountant retire at an early age after only 20 years of service so that new people with less experience can take over.
I don’t know what makes anyone think that unlike other jobs, politicians don’t need to acquire any expertise to do their jobs well. I don’t know of any politicians claiming to have gained no knowledge that is helpful to doing their job well while working as an elected official, even those who call for term limits. This may be one reason why no limits are ever passed. Until we can be assured that no expertise is required or desirable, we should be wary of term limits.
In addition, few politicians today are farmers or ranchers who can return to the land and be self-sufficient when they leave office, as Jefferson and his generation could. Instead, they are almost all professionals of some sort, whether doctors, professors, accountants, or (the biggest category) lawyers. To stay in their original profession, which they would have to do if term limits didn’t allow them to continue as politicians, they would be tempted to ingratiate themselves while working in Congress with those who might employ them later.
It’s hard to imagine a setup more conducive to politicians in office doing the bidding of financial elites at the expense of the average citizen. Whether it’s an oil company, big pharma, a car manufacturer, a chemical company, steel maker, internet provider, or any other large corporation, the rich people who own them are affected by congressional actions.
If term limits require members of Congress to seek work after their political career is done, it’s hard to see how corruption could be avoided. Even without term limits, retired politicians make money as lobbyists soon after leaving office, doing the bidding of the wealthy in the halls of Congress. Term limits threaten their own original goal. Congress would be less rather than more attentive to the needs of average Americans.
At the least, proponents of term limits should examine their view by considering whether being a successful politician needs expertise to do the job well, and how the inducement to sell out the public for a post-political career could be combatted.
You can respond by e-mail at wenz.peter@uis.edu.
Comments