Are term limits ever a good idea?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
41 Comments
Term limits are always a good idea. No, they never lived up to the hopes of good-government advocates and cleaned up government, but they have prevented entrenched family dynasties that you see in other countries. The worst tendency towards Aristocracy is having second and third generation members of family political dynasties like the Kennedy’s and Bushes and Clintons compete for the grand prize.
At least we were spared in the 2016 race from prospect of any more Buses. The crushing of Jeb! should give them all pause. And did we really need another Clinton?
Trump of course wants to establish a political dynasty, rule for 8 years while crushing all his enemies, and then pass the baton off to Princess Ivanka who will rule us in much the fashion of Cruella de Ville. The chances of him pulling this off however, shrink by the day. There wasn’t really a lot of demand for Trisha Nixon or her brood after Watergate, and I suspect Uday & Qusay Trump will be far too toxic to elect anywhere. I could be wrong of course, there is always Tennessee for instance where their act might go over well.
But, we are prevented from having Presidents serve for 15-20 years like Roosevelt did. That is never a good thing. We were fortunate that Roosevelt was a good president. But, how about 20 years of Reagan? They would have propped up that senile old man as a kind of living Weekend at Bernie’s prop until he fell over dead. And the voters would have kept on re-electing him. Because of human nature.
There are a limited number of people who are ever going to admit to themselves “Oh, God! I totally screwed up in voting for that horrible man!” Most will find excuses to continue to support him. There’s a chance after all that he could wind up President for Life Trump, if there wasn’t that pesky Constitutional Amendment in the way.
“President for Life Trump” I’m pretty sure he likes the sound of that, as do his adoring storm-troopers.
I think a two-term limit for the Presidency makes practical sense. The job is such a burnout that I’m not sure anyone anymore could last more than two terms anyway. The real need for term limits, it seems to me, is at the state level where there are so many more opportunities for corruption. But I don’t think there is a need for term limits for Congress where specialized knowledge, experience and judgment are very important requirements.
As for Trump, a) I don’t think he actually likes the job and I am still sticking to my 9 November wager that he will not see 20 Jan. 2018 still in office. He has no chance of establishing a dynasty.
What happens if you lose?
People have the ability, without altering the organic law of the country, to abort any nascent dynasty at any time.
It’s called ‘voting’.
Term limits are a way to vote and not even get your ass out of the recliner.
Apparently yhe answer to a detached and apathetic electorate is to empower their detachment and apathy.
I can see the slogan now:
“What do we want? Meh, who cares. When do we want it? Meh, who cares.”
Pretty doggone catchy. I see a new wave of inactivism ahead.
Mandatory vote-by-mail is also a way to vote while being able to stay in your recliner. And it work great.
Gosh, and it was such a disaster that FDR was president during WWII /sarcasm.
I can’t think of any long-term Western leader where a long tenure was particularly problematic. FDR, Trudeau, Merkel- in what way were the later parts of their tenures worse? The world might be somewhat a better place if Thatcher or Blair hadn’t served quite as long, but again it’s not like they got worse during their tenures, plus Major and Brown weren’t meaningful improvements anyway.
You just skipped almost every political dynasty to focus on a few leaders. What there is to fear without term limits is “President for Life Trump.”
So far El Trumpo hasn’t managed to become very popular, but he hasn’t started a major war yet, or better yet, we haven’t had another 9-11 to whip up fear and hysteria amid massive security crackdowns that will only “accidentally” have the effect of massive suppression of minority voting in certain key districts.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist. We are now living in an open conspiracy, that’s all. The Trumpites have absolutely ZERO intention of surrendering power – ever. They do not believe that it is in any way legitimate for Democrats or Liberals to have any power in America. So, if things continue the way they are going, and Il Duce becomes ever more unpopular, do you suppose he will go down without a dirty little fight to the end? Oh, no!
I can imagine 2020 will be the most overtly racist and underhanded campaign in history. It will make 2016 look like a high school barbeque.
OK, name a political dynasty was harmful to a basically democratic country and which would have been stopped by term limits.
Nehru-Gandhi in India?
“inequality is about much more than the über-rich and the destitute – it is about access to political power.”
http://voxeu.org/article/dynasties-democracies-political-side-inequality
I think Trump is irrelevant to the idea of term limits.
One, I doubt he’ll even be in office come 2020.
Two, it he is, he will lose by 70%. Probably in the primaries.
I love your optimism. If he loses by 70%, we’ll be living in a golden age of American politics.
link
No. At least not for legislatures on down (I think term limits for executives like the Pres or governors has shown to mostly work). For evidence just look here in Missouri. I work down the street from the wingnuts who control all the state gubmint so I see this on a daily basis.
There is no long term memory. As such, newbies come onboard and the only people they can talk to with any experience are lobbyists and trade associations. The result has been catastrophic.
Moreover, it breeds a total lack of responsibility. I’ve sat in meetings and have overheard Republican legislators say “oh I can vote for this because the real impact of it won’t be felt until I’m term limited out.”
They say that because they come from uber secure districts and know they’ll never be held accountable for their craptastic governance skills.
Incumbancy can be a real problem. You solve that by crafting competitive districts.
You solve that by having an informed electorate. Without that, democracy only exists as popularity contests between brand x and brand y sold through consumer advertising campaigns.
It doesn’t matter how informed the electorate is, if they have no options to chose from.
And given the current system where long-term incumbents often craft their own districts, power is often entrenched to the point that terms limits is the only option available for turning over a seat.
Personally, I can go either way on the question of term-limits, it’s the system as a whole that matters. Term-limits are a detail.
The key question in democratic elections is whether all groups truly have access to the levers of power, or whether they are locked out. In our country, the system of legalized bribery and the huge advantage given to monied interests is the problem. Many non-voters don’t bother to come out, because they (accurately) see that their interests are not being served by the candidates on the ballot.
We could just have the lobbyists sit in the legislature, and cut out the middlemen. We’re halfway there, in this state, with ‘citizen leglslators’ who make less than a day care worker, and then for only eight years.
ALEC will be more than happy to provide a big ring binder of the session’s legislation aheat of time.
We could streamline things further and just cut out the legislature, and have the lobbyists meet in a corporate boardroom and issue decrees.
You mean…that’s not how it actually works? How it actually works out, anyway?
Oh.
AG
Mitch McConnell has been in office for 32 years. Are you arguing that he is somehow more immune from the lure of big money and lobbyists than the rank and file? Has he become more responsible over time?
I don’t think so.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/aliya-haq/state-leaders-experts-dismiss-mcconnells-advice-just-say-no-c
lean-power-plan
Agree completely. Two year terms like those of the federal H of R guarantee that newly elected folks, who must start right away fund raising and campaigning for the next election, will have limited time to learn about an extremely complex job. By the time they have become acquainted with the ins and outs of the job, they could be out of office.
It’s not extremely complex. Anyone can do it.
Citizen legislators. On per-diem. No salaries.
Get the parties out of politics.
Get the politicians out of politics.
Get the politics out of politics.
That’s how you fix politics.
Trump supporters thought anyone could do it. They were wrong.
At least that’s how it’s played out here in MT state legislature.
Some rightwingnut local realtor (or whatever) gets elected and thinks s/he can come in and legislate wingnut utopia from day one.
Some eventually moderate a bit once they learn that governating is hard, and they don’t just automatically get their way on everything just because their party’s in the majority (national parallels are obvious). Also that their political opponents are mostly decent humans, not the spawn of Satan they’ve been brainwashed to presume.
Then, just about the time they’ve gained enough experience and institutional knowledge to develop at least the potential for legislating in the interest of the people of the state through compromise with the opposition . . .
. . . they’re term-limited out, and . . .
. . . the next batshit-insane rightwingnut who replaces them has to start the whole learning process all over from scratch.
Agree. Term limits for executives are a good thing (too bad about Obama thoug)–presidents, governors, mayors. Term limits for legislators are always bad, destroying institutional memory and inviting corruption (legislators spend too much of their time contemplating what lobbying firms they’re going to join as it is)..
I like the idea of term limits, but very long ones.
Perhaps 26 or 30 years.
Long enough to let them get good at it, but at some point, let’s clear them out and get some fresh blood.
I have a friend who works with the California legislature, and he said the same thing about the lobbyists. He hates term limits.
Agree with grog. No except for the head of state/head of government. Merkel is now completing her twelfth year and appears set to go for another four years. Far beyond a reasonable period of time for any leader of any country or state.
OTOH, VA with its four year, one-term, governor rule is too short.
Five year term, maximum two terms is where I’d put the sweet spot.
People are kept from voting for some other party, and thereby handing the Chancellorship to Mrs. Merkel exactly how?
Timing on these types of questions is so important. Different answers from Dems, I strongly suspect, if the Q was posed in an internet of 1940 or during the Obama years.
An improvement and nearly a sweet spot, but I don’t like odd-numbered years being thrown into the mix. Aesthetics or a personal obsessive quirk about even/odd numbers of things. Makes me feel queasy just thinking about it.
I could also accept two 6-year terms for prez and govs. Especially at the presidential level, the races for that office seem to come along too quickly, as more massive amounts of $$$ are needed, forcing candidates to start their campaigns much too soon. And except for when we get real disasters in office*, the years go by rather quickly.
For appointed important positions, I’m all for term-limiting fed court justices, especially Scotus types. No more life terms — inherently undemocratic and unaccountable. 16 yrs for Js on the Court, 14 for the lower court judges.
* real disaster presidents: I can count at least 5 in my lifetime (though I stretch things a tad to include the 5th), but fortunately 2 were forced to leave office early
Or just foreign to what we’ve lived with and accepted not only as normal but somehow superior to other terms of office. (I think two years for House reps is too short. Three would be about right. Five or six years for the Senate seems okay. I could make a real mess of this orderly method that have given us disorderly government.
Twelve years — two six year terms — is too long for POTUS and governors. An easier fix if that is what you want is to increase the limit to three four-year terms.
Instead of dicking around with term limits, set a mandatory retirement age. Or a combo mandatory retirement age with number of years on the bench. It don’t like that for the SC at all. John Paul Stevens was on the court for almost thirty-five years and retired as the age of ninety, and we needed every one of those thirty-five years of service from him. Can only hope that Sotomayor lasts as long.
I didn’t offer substantive objections to 5 years, as clearly indicated. (I think I was thinking of Tesla, and the way he was obsessed with staying in hotel rooms whose numbers were divisible by 3, and who preferred a stack of cloth napkins with his meals that amounted to a prime number, etc.) But it could add to electoral fatigue in those odd years where no other national offices are at stake, and then we have national cong’l elections the following year. I am concerned that we expect voters to go to the polls too often, as we include state and local elections in odd years, and primary presidential voting.
Other than that relatively minor objection, 5 years would be about right. I think the French do that, having reduced the presidential term from an unacceptably long 7 yrs. Brits too.
As for fed court judges, it’s the exception to the rule when judges/justices are still effective well into their 80s and 90s, but it occasionally happens. I’d suspect it would be easier to pass a Con amendment to set a limit on years served rather than one including a retirement age.
Term limits was a head fake by those wanting to appear to be doing something serious about restoring true representative government without addressing the real problem of money in politics. And, knowing they are term limited may be more of an impetus to ignore the will of the people and do the bidding of the moneyed elites since they won’t be around to face the wrath of the voters in any case.
NO, plus we already have term limits they’re called elections
We already have term limits. They’re called elections.
That the population is both ill-informed and apathetic unless it’s a cult of personality election for President is the problem.
“Here is a solution. Can we find a corresponding problem?”
The question (irrespective of its actual referents) cannot be the right question. This a logical fallacy. It has a name, which I cannot be arsed to look up.
Now identify a problem and we can search for corresponding solutions (to within the definition of “we”); but even if the search never surfaces “term limits”, it is not possible to prove a universal negative.
No. Abridging the right of the voter to choose the candidate of his or her own choice is undemocratic and dangerous. How would a term-limited senator spend his final six-year term? It’s impossible to say, because he won’t be answerable to the voters again.
Term limits is one of those things that’s shiny from a distance but a bit nauseating up close.
It’s not impossible to say, because we have plenty of examples of term limited politicians in the United States.
The presidency is the most obvious, but 15 states also have limits on the term of legislators, 36 have limits on the term of governors. We have literally thousands of examples of term-limited politicians in the United States. The average term of a U.S. congressman is 10 years. We know how they act, even when they no longer have to worry about their voters.
Some look to higher office, some look to lobbying, some try a gig at FOX, some go back to whatever career they had before going into politics. This is not a mystery.
The last I checked, we don’t have term limits in the United States Senate. So no, we don’t really know what happens with that combination of power and term limits.
Judges. Lifetime terms may have made sense when a “life sentence” was 7 years.
Only for politicians of the opposite party. And especially when they are in a strong majority.