By Daryl Luna, Editor at:In Defense of the Constitution
Whether at Tea Party events or in general political discourse, I often hear a great desire for term limits voiced by people frustrated with our out-of-control government. They hope that the implementation of congressional term limits would go a long way toward solving our political ills. I, however, am not convinced. In fact, I believe that we already have a system of term limits in place; we just don't use it. It's called elections.
Every politician has his day in court each election cycle. Sadly, we often neglect carrying out the sentence most politicians deserve- a trip back home. Instead, time after time, we reward those who trample our liberties and ally themselves with powerful special interests by sending them back into office to continue their misdeeds.
Indeed, the electorate is very much a part of the problem. Failing to punish unconstitutional action, we have encouraged a system of legal looting and constitutional neglect. Term limits might allow individual politicians less time to carry out their abuse, but they will not solve the problem.
What would send a powerful message is simply "kicking the bums out of office." Instead of rubber stamping incumbents, we should be making them earn their jobs and honor their oaths. If they fail to do that, they should be forced to hit the road. However, if they succeed, most of the term limit concerns would be put to rest- though not all.
Even if politicians were on their best behavior, there would still be those calling for term limits because the Founding Fathers never envisioned career politicians; they wanted citizen legislators. This concern is well founded, and at the same time, not well founded at all.
On the former point, some of our very Founders were career politicians; so the idea was not foreign to them. Yes, most of them had day jobs before and after politics, but so do many of our current "career politicians." As for the latter point regarding citizen legislators, this is a very well founded concern.
Our Founders did want ordinary citizens to hold office. And ordinary citizens still do, but I understand that many "normal people" don't hold or run for office in our current age. But is this a problem related to term limits or to the nature of politics itself? I would maintain that it's the latter. Until we attack some of those problems, term limit reform will mean little.
Government and those who serve therein derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. This fact was instrumental to our nation's founding. The Founding Fathers did not include term limits in our Constitution for one simple reason: there was an allowance for representative elections pursuant to the consent of the governed. The people of the states were given a certain responsibility, and term limits advocacy is merely evidence of our unwillingness to meet that responsibility.
It should be noted that not all liberty-minded people agree with me. Texas Congressman Ron Paul is a prime example of a Constitutional libertarian who supports term limits and has proposed term limit legislation himself. I agree with Dr. Paul on a whole host of issues, and I agree with his rationale in supporting term limits--to restore a citizen legislature and break down incumbency advantage.
But I also believe that election cycles, not legislation, should restore the Founders' intent for the legislature. Likewise, while I respect the Cato Institute's vast work on the issue of term limits, I respectfully disagree with their emphasis on legal action over electoral action.
A common reasoning for term limits is that incumbents enjoy a significant systemic advantage that makes it hard for challengers to compete in the system. I could not agree more, but my suggestion is to reform the system to rid it of material advantage for incumbents and barriers to challengers.
Of course, incumbency advantage would still exist because of things like name recognition, but that cannot be helped even by term limit legislation. (Think about it: If Lady Gaga ran for Senate in New York, she would have name recognition and a preexisting base even without ever holding office. How do we combat that?)
We cannot allow some practical concerns to overshadow others. Moreover, we needn't seek more legal avenues to hold politicians accountable, when we refuse to use the ones already before us. I am convinced that electoral action is the best means to solving the problem. It is a means that emphasizes individual choice and expression as well as one that well provides for a host of practical concerns.
As long as it is done constitutionally, I would not fight against term limits. I see the value in them and I understand why many support them. But for now, I think that elections and other reforms provide our best solutions.
