Term Limits for Elected Officials - Essay Example

Term Limits Term limits for elected officials is an issue that continues to create debate between supporters and opponents, although the base of support for the idea has been growing steadily for over a decade. The architects of the foundation of law in America saw no need to specifically address the topic of term limits when they were creating the Constitution because the very idea of a career politician was unknown and probably impossible to even comprehend. As a result, the original Constitution contained no provisions for the protection against the potential corruption of perpetual incumbency, in part because the unwritten consensus was that officeholders would limit themselves to one or two terms and then return to private life (Fund). That potential has all too often been realized with the rise of the career politician in American, and the ubiquity of that political animal has led to a deep rift between those who support and those who oppose the idea of constitutionally restraining the excesses of those who see public service as a route toward personal empowerment. The growth of public support for term limits was made clear in 1995 when nearly half of America's fifty states had chosen to limit terms for their representatives. The momentum for the movement stalled, however, when the Supreme Court ruled by a slim one vote majority that these restrictions on terms were unconstitutional. The high court asserted that "allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the Framers, a structure that was designedto form a 'more perfect union'" (Bandow). What this ruling means, therefore, is that the only way that the system can ever be changed is if those very people who are benefiting from the status quo take the initiative to draft a Constitutional amendment that is directly in opposition to their own best interests. The voting public, indeed the entire country, is placed at the mercy of goodness in the hearts of its lawmakers. Opponents to the idea of limiting the terms of elected officials primarily argue that to do so runs counter to the very democratic ideals upon which the country is based, asserting that the ability to limit terms is already an inherent, indeed integral, part of the existing political process. Those who are unhappy with the governance of their lawmakers have the opportunity ever two to six years to impose a limit upon the terms by simply voting them out of office. Critics insist that there is significant turnover during elections, and that term limits will serve to disincline people from running for office if they see no long term future in it (Levene 210). This idea becomes problematical, however, when one realizes that the likelihood of an incumbent losing a bid for re-election is very low. Even during the historical GOP landslide during of 1994, the incumbency rate was still remarkably high: despite the fact that over three dozen Democratic incumbents failed in their bid for re-election, the overall re-election rate in the House was still an astounding 90 percent, with 314 of the 348 members retaining their seats. Likewise, Senate incumbents proved resilient even in the face of widespread voter dissatisfaction as only two Senators up for re-election were voted out of office (Mattei 30). The argument against term limits carries on with the concept that term limits create an atmosphere of chaos and confusion in Congress as a result of loss of experience on the part of legislators. It is suggested that longer service increases legislator's knowledge and arcane "rules, routines, and procedures that are essential to survival in Congress[and] may also know a great deal about how to use the federal bureaucracy to serve their constituents" (Petraca). Incumbents, it is argued, are therefore a vital and necessary component in keeping Congress operating smoothly. This argument seems disingenuous, however, since Congress can hardly be said to have ever been running smoothly; the argument seems more like a smokescreen designed to conceal a latent racism and sexism that has haunted the corridors of power throughout American history. The incumbency and seniority systems have fashioned an environment in which the top positions of power and responsibility have traditionally been "peopled exclusively by white males" (Ferry). It is a fact that historically women and minorities have been woefully underrepresented in Congress as a whole and specifically in terms of leadership positions. The basic tenet of democracy and the capitalist economic system that underlines it is the idea of competition, yet competition is distinctly unfair in electoral politics. Instituting terms limits, its supporters argue, would serve to create more competitive elections that would diversify Congress so it more closely mirrors the general populace. The current system operates with such a huge benefit to the incumbent that it is practically impossible for a newcomer to win a race, especially if he isn't bankrolled by special interest groups. Critics also make the case that positioning a deadline for the end of a term would be tantamount to creating a system in which lame ducks would have little reason not to disregard the needs of their constituents during their final terms, thereby increasing the already bloated influence and corrupt influence of lobbyists. The net effect would be even more graft and corruption, as well as abuse of powers that currently exists. This argument is presented in the form of a secondary balance of power. As long as lawmakers are held accountable to the will of voters, they will be more likely to police themselves. Of course, this dispute is also subject to the simple counterargument in the form of what is to stop the potential for graft and corruption when a politician decides on his own not to seek another term. Proponents of term limits suggest that the idea will mark a return to the original conception of citizen legislators that the founding fathers had in mind when creating the republic. A government of the people requires not alienated careerists, but the common person. "The more somebody is required to sacrifice time and money and private life to run for the city council, for the state legislature, or for Congress, the more important it is for that person to believe that government is a respectable enterprise with crucial work to do" (Ehrenhalt 1991). Supporters stake the proposition that this type of legislator would ideally be someone with a career outside of public service, who has real contact with his constituents. Since the senior Congressmen are typically the most powerful, they are also the most likely to fall under the sway of special interests. When the high rate of incumbency re-election is combined the opportunity for corrupt gain, "given the power of incumbencyelection to Congress, in essence, equals life tenure" (O'Conner and Sabato). With term limits, politics will not longer be about maintaining a grip on power and the will of the electorate will be validated. Term limits will also serve to police corruption and cultivate positive change. On the other hand, term limits may very well inhibit the ambition of those who truly seek to effect long term change by those who see politics as a part-time vocation rather than a lifetime challenge. Works Cited Bandow, Doug "The Political Revolution That Wasn't: Why Term Limits Are Needed Now More Than Ever" Policy Analysis No. 259 September 5, 1996 Ehrenhalt, Alan The United States of Ambition: Politicians, Power, and the Pursuit of Office Random House, New York. 1991 Ferry, Jonathan "Women Minorities and Term Limits: America's Path to a Representative Congress" U.S. Term Limits Foundation Outlook Series Vol 3, No 2. July, 1994 Fund, John H. "Term Limitations: An Idea Whose Time Has Come" Policy Analysis No. 141 October 30, 1996 Levine, Herbert M. Point-Counterpoint: Reading in American Government St. Martin's Press, New York: 1995. Mattei, Franco. "2 Eight More in '94: the Republican Takeover of the Senate." Midterm: The Elections of 1994 in Context. Ed. Philip A. Klinkner. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996. 21-43. O'Connor, Karen and Larry J. Sabato American Government: Roots and Reform Allyn and Bacon, Massachusetts. 1996. 198 Petracca, Mark "The Poison of Professional Politics" Policy Analysis No. 151 May 10, 1991 Read More