This one’s in the “political weeds”
Term Limits
So here’s a topic that is non-political – neither the Left nor the Right have set “view” that they need to defend. The idea is we should write in legal limits to the amount of continuous time a legislator (or executive) can spend in office. For example: in Ohio the Governor can only serve for two terms in a row, Ohio Senate members can only serve two terms (eight years) and Ohio House members can only serve four terms (eight years).
In the Jeffersonian sense, term limits make sense. It hopes to require that legislators are not “professional” politicians, they must have some other career in life they leave for a temporary time to serve “the people.” This is the “citizen-statesman” that Jefferson imagined (and saw in himself,) the “yeoman farmer” who put down his plow and picked up a pen.
However, if you look at Jefferson, that really wasn’t him. Even in the years when he was technically not holding office, (a couple of years at the end of the Washington Administration) Jefferson had his hand in the burgeoning politicization of America (the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists). From 1776 through the end of his Presidential term (1808) Jefferson spent much of his time in the service of the United States. He always wanted to get back to Monticello, but couldn’t stay very long.
Term limits hope to overcome the power of incumbency. The theory goes that once a legislator has been in office for so long, the advantages the office provides make it near impossible to be removed. In part, it’s the visibility of the position, but it also is the connections that holding office provides, making fundraising easier. In a campaign for an Ohio House of Representative seat, the costs, including media, can near $100,000. Raising that kind of money requires deep pockets from somewhere.
Do term limits make our legislators more “accountable” to the people? It does force different people to run for any given office every few years. The experience in Ohio however, is that it has not altered the “political” professionals who stay in office.
Term limits in Ohio has created a “musical chairs” effect in state government. Term limited at the end of eight years from the Ohio House, many legislators take a couple of years (to make some money, the revolving door between government and industry) then return to either run for the House again or move onto the Ohio Senate. The same names appear on the ballot, but for differing jobs every few years. There is little opening for the “new.”
There is a more important consideration though. Legislation in any state (or the nation) is complex. Looking at the current Federal tax bill, with five-hundred pages and multiple last minute changes, it is near impossible for most legislators to understand it. This means that the “experts” who “get it” are three small groups of people. The first is the few members of Congress who have been a part of the Ways and Means Committee (the tax law committee) who understand the complexity of the bill. They have a tremendous amount of experience, with some members having served thirty years or more in the taxation committee.
The second is the staff, both majority and minority. As they are the principal writers of the bill, they have a strong understanding, it is what they “do.” They also have extended experience in the Congress and specifically the committee.
The third group is the lobbyists. They are paid representatives of private groups (from industry to consumers) who attempt to influence the legislative process. The power of the lobbyists is crucial, and not only in the campaign finance support they can provide for the members running for re-election. As importantly, the lobbyists have specific knowledge of their particular area of the legislation, they can propose changes that fix a individual problem, and have “all of the answers.”
And this is the biggest concern about term limitations, particularly in the legislature. As we reduce the time that an elected member has to gain expertise in a particular area, we then put the power of knowledge into the hands of private individuals who are representing someone, some industry, or some group. Those private individuals are empowered by their knowledge of the subject, much as an “expert witness” is able to draw conclusions in a trial. Since the members are by definition “rookies” due to term limits, they are unable to effectively work without the lobbyists, and at the mercy of their knowledge to act.
My argument is this: in the final analysis term limits don’t really limit terms, they simply set up a rotation of office among the same people. Since those who are in office don’t get to develop the specific knowledge needed, they grow dependent on unelected advisors to determine legislation. Terms limits, in my view, empower lobbyists and staff to determine policy, without creating many new opportunities for elective office.
This being the United States, there always is the ultimate in term limitation: the vote. As we have seen in the past year, that vote can be both uplifting and upsetting, but a determined citizenry can “vote out the bums!” Perhaps, to get back to Jefferson for one more moment, this is what he really meant. That the citizenry would be well educated about the issues of the government, and that they would exercise their power to determine who would hold office. Those are the “Yeoman Farmers” he was depending on to continue the American experiment in democracy.
You make a lot of really good points as always Dahlman. I am very torn on this issue. While I can see the value of setting up a system to help overcome incumbency, there is the problem of constantly sending in rookies to solve our problems, as you bring up. I also worry that term limits further discourage our politicians from taking the hard first steps to solve long-term problems (such as addressing climate change, etc…), which is already an issue when we hold elections every 2 or 4 or 6 years. I’m not advocating for longer terms here, just saying that this is a difficult problem.
-David Taylor