I’d much rather see tougher ethics rules and laws to avoid Hunter type issues and the statistically improbably that nearly every child of a prominent politician gets into an Ivy League school.
I’d end the lobbying of ex politicians, the lifetime access to the Senate floor for all ex senators even those appointed to fill slots before elections can be held - in MA we had at least 2 of them Mo Cowan and a Kennedy hanger on whose name escapes me.
I’d end the naming of anything for a sitting politician. In Springfield, we have a Ritchie Neal health center paid fir with public funds that us essentially an advertisement for the Congressman. I’d end the ability to pay family members to work on campaigns especially when you only have a token opponent - looking at you again Rep. Neal.
The system is so broken and dirty that something needs to be done.
Why can’t the NYT do an in-depth article about the perks that politicians get - free parking at airport in DC, slush funds for offices, not actually living in their districts - Sen Markey.
6
Steyer may be wrong about all the little things, but he's right on the one big thing: the coming catastrophic climate change.
13
Would you support term limits for doctors? Airline pilots? For car mechanics? For electricians? Legislating is a skill. A functioning democracy requires skilled legislators---yes politicians.
The right wing and their wealthy backers (whom FDR called the "Economic Royalists") seekto make "politics" and "politicians" dirty words. They simply want to undermine DEMOCRACY by defining it as a corrupt and useless exercise in deception. This paves the way for the plutocracy (the Economic Royalists--the rule of the wealthy) which is the primary goal the GOP.
28
"...Trump...endorsed them...although he likes to joke about serving past two terms"
He's not joking, Jamelle. Trump and the Republicans absolutely want Trump to be president for life. This isn't a joking matter, this isn't hyperbole, it's absolute indisputable reality. Their singular goal is to ensure that a Democrat never, ever, holds a significant seat of power in this country again.
25
The problem here is deeper. The problem is the complexity and glad-handing in a job that should be more streamlined and simple.
If the gov put some process improvement in place it wouldn't take two years to get up to speed. If the electorate understood they were hiring for a representative and not choosing a drinking buddy we might actually get some people up to the job. And if everything wasn't about special interests and what they can do we might have an effective government.
Meanwhile back on craven, corrupt, ignorant planet Earth...
3
I agree completely with Mr. Bouie and am distressed to learn that some 75% of Americans have fallen for this ploy. I was a fan of Tom Steyer’s until he spouted the term limits nonsense. I’d like to ask him if, instead of the 30 years he boasts about building his company, he’d been given only 12 years to do his best.
Our government and the world are complicated and complex. It’s ludicrous and self-defeating to think that anyone can become a subject matter expert in less than 12 years, and then to force them out once they are approaching that status is just plain stupid.
Suppose we forced doctors to shutter their doors after 12 years. Governing is at least as complex as medicine. Just because Americans are too lazy to keep a close eye on their congresspeople is no excuse.
It’s just another example of the refusal of Americans to accept the responsibilities of citizenship as if it’s a second job for which they are being paid.
9
Sorry, but we need to try something.
Term limits!
3
Thank you, Mr. Boule. You've changed my mind.
5
Beyond this non-issue; I think it's time for Tom Steyer to leave the race and let the other Billionaire who actually didn't respect the term limit of his former office to lead the dem pack!
This column's solution to term limits won't work. Nonpartisan redistricting is never going to happen because incumbents don't want to compete for votes. Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans when it comes to gerrymandering. Gerrymandering by a party (say, Republicans) creates safe Democratic seats. It's in a Democrat politician's self-interest to help the GOP gerrymander, even though collectively the Democrats suffer. The Democrats don't oppose gerrymandering itself; the only oppose gerrymandering when the other guys do it. In Democrat-controlled states, Dems still gerrymander & show no signs of stopping that practice. Their only real complaint is what it's always been: The Democrats have fewer & fewer opportunities to game the system because the Republicans control more & more of the states. Right now it's impossible to fight to gerrymandering because you are bucking established Dems who would see their districts level out. The Democratic Party has zero interest in fixing this problem because our side wants the ability to cheat if & when they gain control of state legislatures. The only way to stop this problem once & for all is to have term limits for all politicians. For more insight into this issue, I urge everyone to read a brilliant NYT article in 2012 by Nate Silver. It proves beyond a reasonable doubt how corrupt both parties are when it comes to gerrymandering. Term limits are the answer.
https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/as-swing-districts-
2
The argument against term limits can be summed up in two words: Nancy Pelosi.
16
The only problem I have with this piece is that it implies that Tom Steyer is a viable candidate.
4
George Washington imposed the term limit on himself.
Was he wrong?
3
Well, Jamelle, at least you are not advising billionaires how to spend their money.
"[J]ust 35 senators[?]" Far too many.
Most Republicans "are crooks and liars."
Historical counterexamples to offset your thesis--Xi Jinping. Putin has just made his bid to extend his tenure. How much freedom and representation do the people of China and Russia enjoy?
Middle Eastern theocracies and countless banana republics worldwide.
Experience is overrated. The learning curve is short, and would-be Congressmen can learn at the municipal and state level.
With term limits, more individuals from racialized subcultures would be encouraged to run and enjoy better prospects for election.
Entirely unconvincing.
5
Term limits would cause honest leaders to work for us instead of using all of their energy on re-election. We wouldn't have these cowering fools that have hitched their wagons to 45, and we would not be in the mess we are now in.
5
Pretty much all the political science research I'm aware of supports Bouie on this. For example:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rogowski/files/term_limits_polarization.pdf?m=1527684612 (term limits increase polarization)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3162/036298006X201742 (term limits reduce responsiveness to constituents)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/08/no-term-limits-wont-draintheswamp-we-did-the-research/ (term limits make politicians more ambitious than they already are)
https://www.msae.org/Portals/0/PDF/Term%20Limits%20White%20Paper%20FINAL%201.8.16.pdf (term limits "contribute to declining efficiency and effectiveness, a lack of interest in long-term policy, lack of legislative oversight, and inexperienced committee chairs")
7
Yes, term limits are dumb. I we are lucky voters will turn away from Steyer and toward the other candidates, including Bloomberg who should be in the debates.
To exclude a candidate who refuses to accept donations because he has too few donations is asinine. As in 2016, the DNC is at fault.
1
Since Michigan instituted terms limits in our legislative bodies, lobbyists have run the show. Terms limits are a bad idea.
Tom Styer is a joke!
6
A NY Times opinion piece I agree with, how rare! I concur with Mr. Boule.
4
Thanks, Mr. Bouie. I agree. So many turn to this old canard in an attempt to "reform" or modernize politics. Your sentence "...the appeal to our most cynical instincts, to the Trumpian refrain that all politics is a waste and all politicians are crooks and liars." Trump is proof of that in his contempt for the rule of law and background to understand the patience of diplomatic efforts and the benefit of knowledge.
4
Elizabeth Warren's plan to fight corruption in Washington is a much better solution than term limits. What advocates hope to accomplish with term limits will not fix the problems they claim are a result of 'career' politicians.
Take the time to view this speech.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?464314-1/senator-elizabeth-warren-campaigns-york-city
3
Perhaps one should earn a term,
before prognosticating about limits.
A great public servant is WELL WORTH
rehiring.
Pack it in, Tom, and help your country
intelligently w/ all your big bucks
3
You state that three quarters of Americans are mistaken. How much more ignorant could you possibly be? I don't even want to imagine what happens if I said that three quarters of the population got it wrong believing in some kind of god. Even though I don't like Steyer and wont' support him (unless he became the candidate, which is highly unlikely), I fully support him here and would go even further: add an age limit, force everyone to retire at age 65. Let younger people do this. I cringe when I see senile Biden run for the most exhausting office. People burn out after doing the exact same job for 10 years, refresh the body.
3
Jamelle Boule is wrong about term limits. For example:
Many of the isolationist Senators after WWI and especially in the 1930s, who killed the League of Nations and did an enormous amount of destruction to America's defense - almost assured Nazis domination of the world - were Senators with a great deal of time in the Senate. Ditto the arch racist segregationists in the Senate who undermined civil rights, killed the anti-lynching bills, etc.,
were Senators with a great deal of time in the Senate. Many of these Senators undermined democratic American values. There is a lot to be said for term limits for politicians, if the people want them. Give another person a chance to participate in their government. There is a strong argument that if the people want term limits, term limits are more democratic.
2
Nancy Pelosi has been in the House of Representatives since 1987. Her brilliant handling of the impeachment of the most corrupt President in US history is steeped in expertise born from experience. Term limits are nonsensical.
5
What's needed are 'smarter' voters...NOT term limits...People who keep returning no-account politicians to office, time after time, deserve what they get...Believe me, I Know...Mitch McConnell is from my state...Just sayin'...Take Care!
5
Two words - Nancy Pelosi. Case closed.
4
Look at the Dingle family. They have controlled that seat in the House for over 60 years. Who said fiefdoms are dead,
3
Of course we need term limits.
When I choose a doctor, I want someone who has the least experience in the field. Fresh out of medical school? - absolutely yes! Successfully treated hundreds of patients who had exactly my illness? - No Sir! I want an amateur to cut me open.
Need a lawyer? Just got a diploma? - I'll take that person. Successfully litigated hundreds of cases just like mine? - No way! I want an amateur to tell the jury why I should not forfeit my home or be imprisoned for life.
Does this sound silly to you? I hope so.
134
There was a time when I shared Mr Bouies opinion re term limits, but the only time I see politicians voting their concence is when they aren't running for re-election - consider John McCains vote on healthcare for example. Running again means raising money again and ingratiating yourself with party apparatchiks - all bad.
52
I might concede the argument for term limits for Congress but not for the President and Supreme Court. We should have one six year term for President. With the current system newly elected presidents spend the first two years learning the job and the next two years trying to get re-elected. By removing them from the political election process major goals for which they were given the mantle of power might be accomplished with less worrying about how it's going to affect his or her re-election.
The founding fathers made a terrible mistake by giving Supreme Court justices lifetime appointments. We should not have nine sclerotic despots making major decisions affecting our lives for the entirety of theirs. I would say forced retirement for the Justices at 72 or 20 years of service whichever comes first.
66
Your column speaks truth. I have seen exactly this problem in Michigan-- since term limits were instituted twenty years ago, lobbyists have become the most powerful entity in Michigans government. The results are very bad, it's a short cut to rule by the richest, and utter disregard for everyone else.
220
@Michele Underhill
As a former lobbyist in the Maine Legislature, I totally agree with this column. Experience and thorough knowledge of the issues is critical, and that only comes with time. I hated having to re-educate the new crop of legislators every two years. Term limits definitely enhances the influence of lobbyists and state officials with legislators with little history and experience. Those who advocate term limits for Congress or legislatures are naive and inexperienced, like Tom Steyer.
66
@Michele Underhill In PA it's gerrymandering and a very liberal gifts policy. We're working on it.
8
Arizona enacted term limits by initiative and now we have a bunch of amateurs who develop little institutional knowledge. And they feel no need to cultivate across-the-aisle friendships or deals.
Run away fast from this naive idea.
195
If the voters find an official acceptable after even decades, why would they be denied the possibility of voting for this exceptional person? JQ Adams went back to the House after serving as President. The voters should decide who is a good representative. It's the money raising aspect of the job that is corrupting.
Good article!
172
Thank you so much for this well researched and well reasoned article. The knee jerk call for term limits gets me crabby every time. Here in Oregon we have mostly excellent representation by some of the longer serving Senators and Congresspeople and I for one am very grateful for their expertise and dedication. Thanks too for offering the right alternatives: easier voting, fair districting and limitations on special interest contributions.
93
Term limits have created massive disfunction in the Michigan state legislature. Everyone is looking for their next gig, which opens them up to lobbyists. The best term limits are elections and an educated electorate that holds legislators to working for the common good.
93
@Linda Trout Agreed. The ones who want to milk the system will either run for other office or take private jobs. Any institutional memory or hope for relationship-building in our legislature is erased. Michigan's legislature is seriously dysfunctional.
12
I have read that the original constitutional reason that our Congress does not have term limits is to check the executive branch which is invested with great powers and is run by only one person - the President. I agree that the term limit solution is not a solution at all. Public financing of campaigns would go a long way to end the corruption, in my opinion. Also paying Congress better would help reduce the need to raise funds from private sources, which often leads to corruption. Congress should receive all of their pay from the taxpayers, not private interests.
33
After living through the effects of term-limiting here in California, I must say that I am not a fan of the concept. In too many cases, effective office holders have to shuffle off to another role when we might prefer to have them stay. They don't return to the private sector. They just switch jobs with someone else. They can do this because voters still do want them in office.
One point missing from this article is how much power is now controlled by the unelected political aides who tend to stay in position while their bosses change roles. These people may hold more real power, due to their greater experience and ability to make longer term contacts, than the people we actually elect.
I put Steyer on the bottom of my list many months ago when he expressed his views about term limits in his ads. That said, I will be his most ardent supporter if he becomes the Democratic nominee. Any of the current Dem candidates count on my vote in November!
95
@edna There was a great British comedy many years ago, Yes, Minister, that showed this power of the unelected political aides brilliantly. The great Nigel Hawthorne played the permanent secretary to the elected minister. You can find episodes on youtube - well worth a watch - for great comedy as well as astute political insights!
10
@Elizabeth
Thanks for reminding me of that wonderful program. I was a fan of Yes, Minister even though I did not always get the jokes (I knew much less about UK politics and personalities back then). You are so right about watching this very funny show -- educational and entertaining!
7
Who'dathunkit? I've been aboard the term-limits bandwagon forever, headed apparently the wrong way.
Darn it! Well, better later than never, I guess. Thanks, Jamelle, for this perspective-changing op-ed. Now, how do I erase all the propaganda I've been broadcasting over the decades inveighing for term limits?
3
Why should the voters be limited in whom they can choose to represent them?
1
Does the lobbyist have term limits? The second half of this piece exposes the sophistry of the argument for term limits.
Mr Bouie gets it right when he identifies the fundamental unfairness of being told who you can not vote for. It is just as being told for whom you must vote as was done in Soviet Russia.
2
I do not favor term limits. It seems to me that with a shorter and defined term more in Congress would spend more of their time jockeying for their next position. That, too, leads to doing favors for the private sector.
Funny, though, how many folks who want an experienced doctor or lawyer or teacher suddenly when it comes to who will run the government and make significant decisions which will effect American lives for decades or longer think that we always need an "outsider," i.e., someone who does not know what he/she is doing. A similar dynamic plays out with term limits - the thrust to always have neophytes deciding the fate of the country and the next generation...
5
It's not the length of time that some legislators serve, it is the time they need to spend raising re-election funds, and the promises and influence they need to peddle to get that money. We need public funding, and strict outside spending limits, on all elections. We have moved away from 'one person, one vote' and closer and closer to 'each dollar, one vote'. When all the candidates have the same amount of money to spend, and only that, perhaps they will instead compete on the quality of their ideas, their performance record, and the content of their character.
2
We don't need arbitrary term limits. We need publicly-funded elections. That's the only way we will be a country run by "we the people."
18
It is not the time in office that is the problem.
It is de-regulation and the destruction of our Civil Service that enforced the rules and regulations. Mostly the revolving door from private sector work to government work did not exist prior to the republicans lying their way into office so they could destroy the best run government man had ever created in 1980.
2
People for term limits tend to be those, like Steyer, who could never get elected to anything in the first place. It is foolish in any case to arbitrarily restrict the right of voters to choose their representatives and the right of citizens to assume public service. Congress is disastrous enough without retiring the most experienced players and turning it into a permanent minor league.
4
Why are we wasting time talking about Steyer? Steyer is not a credible candidate. I see. Gallup tells us that three quarters of Americans support them. All the same, none of the remaining credible Democratic candidates support them. I just checked. Trump, who is an unfit president, supports them. Here's something, however, that Sanders, whom I will vote for if he is the nominee, is wrong about. Like Trump he has said and continues to say that undocumented immigrants depress wages for citizens. Not a single study supports that conclusion.
4
Excellent, timely essay. Good-hearted “reformers” too often in our history have pressed for changes that actually exacerbate the very problems they are supposed to solve. Mr Boule has hit a nail squarely on its head.
7
From my view, the lawmakers who are represent 30 years plus, may only represent 20% of the elected body. But control most of the committees and key party platforms and decisions. I do not know what the answer is.
I perceive myself as a centrist Democrat. Justice Ginsburg is a textbook example of jurists and legislators that will not give up their power, maybe thirst of power, at any cost. On that basis, I am in favor of term limits.
I appreciate this argument against term limits, and I mostly agree. The byzantine quality of junior and senior status and hierarchy; quid quo pro, and compromise should not rule our branches of government either state or federal.
I think term limits would for the most part remove the role of voters to decide.
I do think that the SCOTUS should also be answerable to some kind of limits or removal, if really bad decisions remove benefit to the greater public good, such as in the decision to reverse the Voting Rights Act; and the terrible decisions Citizens, and Dread Scott v Sanford. Looming on the horizon is Roe v Wade. There are others .
In some ways 2 party political corporations are hampering our democracy. I'm not sure how term limits can evolve problems in direct conflict with electional law and the spirit of our constitution if our 2 party system is corrupt, hampering justice, rule of law, and elected officials' ability to write laws, or enact policies which benefit the health of body politic, commerce, and our environment.
Jamelle Bouie is absolutely correct. Term limits is an idea which sounds a lot better than it actually is. It is smoke and mirrors as opposed to addressing the real problem, the requirement to constantly raise money for the next rodeo. Campaign financing is the actual worm in the apple.
Rather than being a balm for corruption, term limits are the first step toward lobbyists "helping" draft legislation for ingenue elected officials.
5
I think it was corporate types of both parties who began talking about term limits as a way to avoid talking about campaign finance. If big money is still the main way to buy electability, we’ll still be stuck with pols who represent donors more than constituents - whether they serve two terms or twenty. The loss of institutional memory and the development of special expertise among legislators also argue against term limits.
3
The best term limit is the ballot box.
5
@MJ
Incumbency is such a powerful tool, and many voters are not educated enough to vote responsibly.
California's move to term limits has effectively ceded control almost entirely to the lobbyists. Yes, the long-time staffers who move from one newly elected confused politician to the next newcomer do add some balance, but are still secondary to the lobbyists.
It takes a good while for legislators to "learn the ropes" and become effective. Some form of term limits may do more good than harm--but the numbers normally discussed are too short.
It also eliminates those who would like to focus on making our laws better rather than just using the position as a stepping-stone. We need institutionalists who actually care about the jobs they are in as a contributor or a career, not just a resume check-box.
4
I agree with Mr. Bouie,
Term limits are not democratic. As a republic the one lever of power the polity has is their vote.
What I think would be far more effective in energizing our democracy is to have a national holiday every year when all elections would be held.
Voting would be obligatory with exemptions only for the sick, elderly, emergency workers and pub owners.
In this scenario, if you don't vote you have to spend one night in jail. If you have no respect for your freedom to vote, you should give up a bit of your freedom of movement for being so cavalier and thoughtless.
2
I wholly agree. Term limits would leave representatives and senators more beholden to lobbyists and less able to maneuver through the legislative process, further empowering professional aides. This shifts power away from elected officials to the wrong sort of professionals. The right sort, in my mind, are professional politicians who can devote themselves to mastering the complexity of governing.
1
Overturn Citizens United first, then we can talk about imposing term limits for Congress (or perhaps SCOTUS as well...)
6
@Adam Definitely SCOTUS...That "branch" of government was just a BAD idea...
The first, and last, time I volunteered for a congressional campaign, term limits where in the air. I was volunteering for the Speaker of the House, Tom Foley.
We lost. There were many reasons, but the big issue was term limits. The clown who won promised to only serve two terms.
He served three.
It's the voice of ignorance that calls for term limits. Limiting the experience and expertise of national politicians hands the power to lobbyists. The supporters of Steyer should just say they are in favor of handing more legislative power to corporate lobbyists and making politicians just rubber-stamp guys instead of political philosophers and skilled crafters of long-lasting legislation?
1
Jamelle Bouie is mistaken. Term limits are an obvious necessity born out by the past excess terms of FDR causing the cogent Twenty Second Amendment in response. Unfortunately, the foresight was missing to apply it to the same members of Congress who passed the Amendment. Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and several other Democrat hopefuls are career politicians who should be sent out to pasture and be removed from ever running for government office of any kind. Without term limits, power is concentrated in the hands of the few and government ceases to function as was designed to be representative of and reflect the will of the people. That is the very reason the Left and Mr. Bouie are against it as their Marxist model does not sync.
2
Maybe institutionalized bribery / corruption by K Street lawyers writing legislation rubber-stamped by the legislators verbatim should be overhauled or regulated or made public so voters know.
Mr Bouie,Your statement that Mr Steyer has put term limits at the center of his campaign is surprising since his most vocal print and TV ads have been for the urgency of climate change and he was one of the earliest voices calling for impeachment, when conventional wisdom was arguing against it.
You certainly make good arguments against term limits, but making the topic the central issue and complaint about Steyer's campaign, along with the title of your piece,"Another Thing Tom Steyer is Wrong About" makes me think you are not an impartial critic of this candidate.
3
One need look no further than Nancy Pelosi to find a textbook example of a highly skilled, undeniable effective career politician.
12
Mr. Boule is correct. In what other field of human endeavor would we remove folks just when they’re learning how to be effective?
Ok, well in criminal enterprises.
The solution is to remove the criminals (you know who) and incompetents (big overlap at the moment). One size doesn’t fit all.
3
Bouie has summarized my views on term limits.
Elected officials’ term limits are most reasonably determined by their constituents. Poor and bad office holders remain in office not by force of their will but by the complacent or misguided electorate who re-elects them. To reform corrupt publicly elected officialdom requires wising up the voters.
1
What an absurd title for this article? I agree with the article's main point. And I'm not a Steyer supporter. But I find the title of the article, with its heavy-handed implications about Mr. Steyer, downright disturbing. An obvious attempt to slight one candidate's entire candidacy by inference simply because he supports a position on an issue most Americans support. In the whole article there is no mention of any other issues Mr. Steyer is wrong about, yet that's the title. If the Times and its editorial staff want to tear down or slight one candidate, fine. But at least have the decency to do it directly and not through such off-handed slights.
4
I don't when Trump talks about serving past two terms that it is a joke at all - I think it's a trial balloon for him for his base as he covets a "Putinesque" and "Xi" approach to a lifetime appointment. God help us all!
3
As we all know by now, when you want informed political opinions, the best people are billionaires.
Like the Tea Party, Steyer understands that having inexperienced know-nothings run the government for only a few short years each is the key to having ineffective government.
This allows the real leaders of society, the Christian Right and Lobbyist, to continue their long term plans to shape society without all that pesky interference with politicians who are just passing through and soon gone.
1
Mr. Bowie;
I absolutely agree with you. Term limits are thought to be an easy and quick way out of our current political mess. The real problems are, of course, the harder nuts to crack. Only an arrogant billionaire from California, with no governing experience but with enough money to run would propose it. Let’s get money out of politics first. Let’s enforce federal civil rights so voting is easier and fairer. And unhackable.
6
Nice discussion of a goal that many voters seem to accept as the way to good government. Sort of like "cut taxes and everything will be good". Few congresspeople come to congress with a deep enough understanding of consumer protection, regulating emissions, protecting voting rights, etc. that they can stand up to well informed lobbyists. The rare few who do, e.g. Elizabeth Warren, are prized legislators and we need to encourage them to stay. Others may gradually accumulate the experience they need over many years, and it is important for committee memberships etc to reward that. The many serious abuses we see in congress either reflect unthinking rewarding of time in congress by important committee memberships (e.g. Inhofe
on Armed Services; Commerce, Science and Transportation; Environment and Public Works, and Small business) or deliberate placement of lobbyists on the committees that should regulate their companies (e.g. Andrew Wheeler at EPA). This type of crony or corrupt practice will not be helped in any way by term limits. It sure is hard to believe that the presence of people like Nancy Pelosi is the problem with Congress.
2
We have term limits, they are called elections and held every two, four, and six years. What we lack are statesmen. Read about William Proxmire and how he refused campaign contributions and spent very little of his own money on his campaigns. If you need millions of dollars to get your message across, you're words speak louder than your actions and you shouldn't be re-elected. Term limits, just like electing another billionaire with no practical government experience is a bad idea.
4
Abolishing term limits makes legislators more beholden to outside interests, not less. Anyone who has actually worked in government will tell you this is true. This is the fundamental reason why they don't make much sense.
1
I think lobbying should be abolished. Industry can send a letter to members of Congress outlining their interests and needs. We have a government that supposedly has the interests of all Americans as its job description. Washington has been turned into a zoo of fancy lunches and constant disruptions of representative's time. Voting should be mandatory and automatic registration needs to be a part of that. Paper ballots. I very much agree with Steyer on referendums. That would mean a step toward real democracy. Right now we're a monarchy.
4
@Suzanne Wheat
There is something about the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the First Amendment.
@Suzanne Wheat
In California, the propositions end up being a vehicle for special interests to install changes to the State's constitution which the legislators cannot touch. The initiative process helped break the railroads political power in the early 1900's but it was not a panacea.
@Casual Observer
Unfortunately, the referendum (proposition) process has itself become corrupt, often heavily funded by outside special interest groups, and tying the hands of elected representatives to do their jobs. We need only look at California's disastrous Prop 13, an initiative spearheaded and funded by out of state ani-tax, libertarian plutocratic interests - a proposition that has decimated public education and municipal budgets - to see how that process has failed.
Neither term limits not referenda are the solution.
The issue always comes down to money and its sources. Keeping both political campaigns and propositions exclusively publicly, as opposed to privately , financed would go a long way, it seems to me, towards keeping everyone honest, though.
1
I think the argument goes both ways. There are pro and cons to either side, perhaps more in favor of term limits.
1. People ensconced in Congress for a long time can also become too secure about their roles and risk becoming stubborn proponents for lobbies. If anything, weakening the strength of lobbies might stem from imposing term limits by making it difficult for lobbies to plan and strategize.
2. Politicians, like people in other professions, are creatures of habit. Once a bad habit gets set in, it is difficult to root out unless the actor is shown the door. Given that most Americans pay attention to only sound bites, a forced exit might be a good way to refresh talent.
3. Forced exit is a good way to battle gerrymandering.
4. Trump is not wrong - politicians are mostly crooks and liars, albeit disproportionately on the GOP side including the man himself.
3
I appreciate that well thought out position and have now changed my view.
4
I don't see how you can argue against term limits when we have the example right in front of our eyes of the destruction that no term limits can cause. Having no term limits has brought us to the brink of destruction and we don't know yet if our constitutional government will survive.
There's just too much ingrained corruption that breeds with no term limits. Our best example of that is the iron will of the Republican party that is putting their boot on their members so they don't defy Trump. Extraordinary, utterly extraordinary!
I think the facts now speak for themselves. We need term limits because we can't take a chance that this illegal nightmare can ever happen again.
Tom Steyer would do well to consider his own U.S. Representative, Nancy Pelosi.
In recent years, Nancy Pelosi has shown herself to be a master political strategist in regaining a Democratic house, in returning to the Speaker's chair, and in the impeachment process. One of the reasons she has been effective is because she has taken her job seriously for more than 30 years.
It is very difficult to imagine anyone becoming so skilled at so complex a job in the 12 years Mr. Steyer advocates.
8
I have a counter-proposal for Mr. Steyer: term limits for billionaires. After ten years of being a billionaire, strip every cent of their ill-gotten and unearned wealth from them.
4
If money is the problem then term limits and short terms make it worse. A rookie politician contesting a veteran has to find fresh money to become beholden to.
The money problem is driven by contested elections that require funding to win. We ought to consider longer terms, fewer elections and a legitimate method of recall. That way, once a district has found somebody they like, that politician doesn't have to go back to the money well quiet as often.
@Richard Williams
While I agree that private money influencing public representatives is anathema to democracy, longer terms are not the answer. More democracy is. And to accomplish that, we must replace ALL private funding of political campaigns with public financing, including for primaries. Buying politicians, even if more occasionally, still subverts democracy.
If one studies ancient Athens political practices, term limits were standard. But that was a direct democracy where all the citizens could perform all the tasks. Term limits prevented dominant cliques from becoming established.
Term limits in our representative democracies with vast bureaucracies implementing the laws and policies determined by the representatives, the citizens and their representatives just cannot know how it all works as soon as they enter the offices. That makes term limits a limit on the citizens' representatives power, not those of vested interested who would seek to control the government for their own advantages.
The corruption which exists does because voters are either complacent or misguided resulting in elected officials who fail to serve their interests faithfully. To fix that requires educating voters not term limits.
I can't help but notice that the people in my social media feeds who often bang the drum about term limits are my most naive friends who also post about "forced vaccinations," their current multi-level marketing endeavors, and how God has chosen Donald Trump to be our leader.
5
It is not time that is the problem it is money.
2
I thing could be worse than what we now have!
Get rid of the partisan primary and gerrymandering.
1
Interesting article with many important points. My objection to term limits is simple: I simply don't see many people who I feel make competent and effective legislators. When someone truly fills the bill we need to keep them. Let the voters decide how long they should stay in office.
4
@J I would have to say we voters have not done a good job. But gerrymandering does not help and both republicans and democrats do it.
There is a mechanism for term limits: voting for someone new. Whenever we hear about term limits, ire always focuses on someone else's senator/representative. However, voters generally view their own representation positively and continue to to vote them to additional terms.
Based upon this, it would appear that those who support term limits are actually saying that voters in other districts/states aren't up to snuff and their options should be curtailed. Conversely, those who support term limits, generally exempt themselves from this limitation.
2
I would also imagine that the longer an elected official is in office the less beholden to big money he or she is. The accumulated wealth of knowledge will have a counterbalancing effect. Elder statespeople are valued precisely because of their age and experience. That can lend them a gravitas and respectability that makes people listen. If course, some of our grosser representatives and senators have been in power for a while, but as they act more incompetently and even more grossly, their higher visibility might make them more vulnerable to correction Not perfect for sure, but arbitrarily shutting some leaders down would seem to interfere with the idea of making elections as open and fair as possible.
2
Bad math
Mr Bouie claims that because the average tenure of a legislator is roughly 10 years, that long term legislators are uncommon and thus term limits unneeded. Not so. If each legislator served precisely 20 years and they started at staggered intervals, the average tenure of legislators would be about ...10.
That term limits may put too much power in the hands of unelected staff and lobbyists may be a good argument . But it deserves to be examined on its own, without the misleading use of flawed statistics.
Imagine if Obama had joked about extending his term. So many conservatives were afraid he would not relinquish power.
2
Expand the House of Representatives by a factor of ten, and have districts drawn up by non-partisan committees. Also, require representatives to spend most of the time in the district rather than Washington so that their constituents have easy access and keep an eye on them. With the internet, there is no need for everyone come together in a single place. The Senate is a different story, but maybe they can stay in their home states too.
1
I think a factor of ten may be a little high, but you're right that the House needs to be much bigger. The decision to restrict it to 435 delegates was made in 1911, and it's simply too few for a country this size. By contrast, the House of Commons in the UK, a country of some 67 million, has 650 members.
4
@Susan
But not by much. It averages to a little over 10.000 constituents for every member of the House of Commons.
This is an excellent column. Bouie is correct that many of these problems can be addressed by reforming districting and funding. I would also add ranked voting to that list.
Most importantly, however, is Bouie's point about public funding for elections. There needs to be a serious campaign in support of publicly funded elections in this country. I actually think Steyer is a decent person, but the ability to buy yourself into an election as evidenced by Steyer (and much more grossly by Bloomberg) is a disaster for our democracy.
4
I wholeheartedly agree with this piece in its entirety. Thank you Mr. Bouie for your always excellent pieces!
3
Mr. Bouie: Good points all.
Evidence suggests that people look unfavorably upon Congress as a whole, but view favorably their own representative.
1
I live in a state that unwisely enacted term limits for the state legislature. The result was an increase in the influence of lobbyists and an increase in the power of the governor. It has cut off the stream of young legislators who cut their political teeth in the legislature where learned the ropes of government before moving on to run for statewide office. They had a chance to develop some name recognition because of their work. Now our statewide offices go to millionaires whose families can fund their elections and those the lobbying community wants.
6
I would like to propose term limits for billionaires. Upon reaching that ridiculous number, higher and higher levels of scrutiny and transparency on all their holdings would obtain. For example, the ratio between their lowest paid employees and their own pay would have to narrow. Or if we are just discussing investment income, higher tax rates in proportion to assessed total wealth might be involved. Smarter people than me could figure this out in a way so as once you reach the sky, you are forced to consider what is going on to the earthbound. Everyone, billionaires included, return to the earth.
1
The GOP congressman in the district next to mine was part of the '94 class with their Contract with America and the term limits pledge which he swore he would follow. Yeah, right. He's still there 12 terms later along with the help of a bunch of hardcore gerrymandering to help him lock down the seat. If anyone is honest about reform, there needs to be fair nonpartisan redistricting everywhere, not term limits.
11
I agree in principle that term limits are not desirable; that the people should choose when an elected official has served enough terms. However, this assumes free and fair elections; it does not assume a U.S. system where Supreme Court decisions on the Constitution have prohibited Congress from applying real spending limits on elections. Until we figure out how to change this system, a term limits requirement is the only mechanism available to prevent politicians' original good intentions being co-opted by well-heeled lobbyists and donors.
We have had terms limits for the President for decades; I don't hear anyone complaining that this has been a problem. New York City has had term limits for its offices for some time now, and there is no question that it has produced a better class of local legislators and citywide officials. Meanwhile, in my experience, third terms and beyond in State and local offices have been abominations--the officials' best people leave after one or two terms; the officials starts to get lazy, entitled or corrupt, with at best no improvements or innovations happening after the first two terms.
If you wonder why almost all of the leaders of the Senate are old white males from small population states--thereby wielding excessively disproportionate power over the country--you can blame the absence of terms limits.
4
I think this opinion is more a screed about presidential power and the concern that the imposition of term limits allows the executive branch to wreak havoc on government and therefore the citizenry.
What we have learned during the last three years is that there is a branch of government responsible for making the wheels turn – the bureaucracy that has evolved into a government within the government. Given the devolution of the power of the press, this deeply experienced bureaucracy is the new “Fourth Estate”.
What really needs to happen is to change the terms of how the bureaucracy operates – let us use elections to select and approve both houses of congress, the executive branch AND the judicial branch.
Change the law so that the members of both houses of Congress, the Presidency and especially the courts are assigned experienced staff – no more political appointments, but experienced, aids who can guide elected officials in their decision making.
The elected office holder will still be the maker of the final decision, but they will do so with the guidance of someone who has already been there and done that. Elected members of the government could make limited staff changes from time-to-time.
A final change would involve the courts, Use elections to limit the appointment of former circuit judges to a maximum of three, use experienced state judges who have no ties to the federal bench and limit the approval of candidates to a bipartisan subset of elected representatives.
Term limits can be designed to allow us both the benefits of experience and some protection against oligarchy:
We need to increase creative discourse, and much of creativity is derived from both inspiration and experience.
So, if we had only "consecutive" term limits--say two terms as senator, four terms as representative--then people with experience and continuing interest would be encouraged to remain in some form of participation, without the potential for entrenchment of power and oligarchic class.
My examples about "how many" consecutive terms would be one of the subjects for this discourse.
I for one am all for term appointments when it comes to Federal Judges. It seems to me that 20 years would be long enough to retain some of the expertise Mr Bouie is worried about. At the same time a term limit would ensure that a regular turnover would help to keep the courts fresh and up to date.
4
We seem to have a collective fantasy that we can operate this Nation with simple solutions like "term limits" and "smaller government". We also think we can run this vast enterprise on the cheap, hence "no new taxes".
There are 300 million of us, living on a continent that is bordered by the two great oceans, with multitudes of cultures and habits and people. This United States of America is a vast complex mechanism that really doesn't allow for these outdated cliches.
The question and discussion that need be addressed is somewhat simple: Are we One Nation, willing to work together, all of US, to make life better for all of US; or are we a collection of tribes and regions and prejudices that does not allow us to govern as one Nation?
Perhaps it is time to break up into regional and city states and just forget about the United States of America.
5
We already have de facto term limits, in that any House or Senate member comes up for re-election periodically.
Why get rid of someone who is doing a good job? Why keep someone who isn't?
What we need is for voters to use the power they have. Vote in midterm elections. Research the candidates instead of just voting for the candidate you have heard of or the one who has a nice-looking family or the one who has the loudest TV ads.
10
Thanks for this - I have been aware of the research you cite of the negative impacts of term limits in those states that have enacted them. It frustrates me to no end that so many people think this wrongheaded policy will solve our problems - you show very well that if anything, term limits will make our problems worse. Term limits undermines our democracy rather than strengthens it, exactly the wrong direction we should be going in.
2
There are some arguments to be made for term limits--after all, we did institute it for the Presidency--and some arguments to make against them.
But a far more important lever to open up the political system, and perhaps get representatives actually representing their constituents and not just the rich oligarchs who fund their campaigns currently, is full public funding of elections, with no organizational contributions (be they from unions, companies, chambers of commerce, churches, or 5-0-whatevers) allowed, and a very low (three-digit) limit on individual contributions per race.
That's enough to satisfy the "free speech" argument--as free speech can only be the right of an individual, not a group entity, and one should not be able to buy 'more free speech".
4
A well reasoned, concisely documented argument favoring no term limits. Trouble is, congress is too populated with elderly white men, many having been there for decades. Term limits will help foster change. Fresh faces are important. Even if some are elderly male and white. Just so long as they haven't been there, seemingly forever. Gaining a congressional seat should be hugely competitive. Term limits help ensure this.
1
@Stanley Jones As Bouie states: "It’s worth saying, to start, that the “problem” of long-serving lawmakers — the problem a term limit purports to solve — isn’t actually a problem at all. The congressional scholar Josh Huder notes that just 35 senators (and less than a third of the House) have served 10 years or more. Likewise, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service, average tenure in the past two Congresses sat at roughly 10 years. Long-serving lawmakers are highly visible — often because they occupy key leadership roles — but they aren’t particularly common." In other words, term limits are a "solution" to a problem that does not exist. Your reply to@Julie focuses on leadership positions, a different issue (one that is not as great a problem, I suspect, as you suggest).
@Meredith Hoppin Still, like most all other developed nations, term limits are considered a real and crucial way of lawmaking.
It might be useful to increase the number of legislators we have.
1
Missouri is an example of a state with strict term limits and a House and Senate that is totally out of touch with the voters. I have been pointing out that the term limits have indeed made the local politicians less interested in the voters than in where their career will take them after they are forced to leave office. For many it becomes a job as a lobbyist, or with a corporation for whom they have passed key legislation.
I appreciate this article because this is a tough argument to make with voters who are already frustrated with Congressional deadlock. We really need some serious research to analyze the effects of term limits.
5
Counterpoint: Mitch McConnell was first elected in 1984, has been reelected five times, and has done immeasurable damage to American democracy.
3
We can blame the voters of Kentucky for that. His approval ratings are abysmal, but they keep reelecting him. Term limits won't stop voters from being idiots.
1
@Jason Nancy Pelosi counters that argument.
Term limits would fix some problems and create new ones, which is typical. What Bouie asserts would be an effect of term limits -- namely, a weak, deferential, and manipulatable legislature -- is the case George Will routinely makes for their implementation, as today's careerists concerned with reelection won't make difficult decisions as long as they can avoid them; when they can, they offload them to courts, bureaucrats, and the executive. Limiting the House to four terms, the Senate to two, would likely have at least as many beneficial as bad effects.
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/a-madisonian-reform "With a limited tenure awaiting a new member, and the returns on any given election thus diminishing, why serve unless it is to assert one's authority for purposes that conduce to a view of the public good? ... Term-limited members ... would be less able to monetize relationships of short duration. The knowledge that one cannot be re-elected permanently reduces the urgency of each intervening election, freeing members of Congress to [stop] punting the responsibility to executive agencies or courts."
The problems with the national legislature aren't exactly the same as those at the state level. More of Congress's work should be shielded from public view; of that I have no doubt (not that this will ever happen). I'm open to term limits and Seventeenth Amendment repeal, but am less certain of their effects, particularly the former.
1
@David L, Jr.
". More of Congress's work should be shielded from public view; of that I have no doubt"
This notion is an extra-ordinarilly flagrant denial of transparency and democracy.
I too strongly agree. Thank you for laying out so many compelling arguments against term limits. Adding on, Steyer's advocacy for Congressional term limits cannot be adopted without a Constitutional amendment given a Supreme Court decision in U.S. Terms Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that bans Congressional term limits. A constitutional amendment is a very heavy lift and in my opinion shows his lack of seriousness for his position. At the very least, when running for President, I would appreciate someone who has done some basic homework about how our system works and what is possible to do as a President. Finally, his support for national referenda is another misguided proposal--one just needs to look at Brexit to see how divisive a national referendum can be.
3
@Julie Just as a soccer, a basketball team, need constant refreshing to ensure the best of the best as played, so goes the need for Congress. Seniority should not be based wholly on how many times you've been elected to be there, but on what you have achieved during a fixed term.
Fresh places, new faces, better races.
1
@Julie One would think that post-Brexit, the idea of a national referendum on anything would be a dead issue for Democrats.
Whether you like them or not, politicians hold a job which requires special knowledge That job is governing. And it's a skill that is different from running a business for profit. I've done that. Governing, in it's purest form, is a not-for-profit affair. I'm now a very minor elected public official--a school committee member. It has taken me nearly all of my first 3 year term to learn what I need to know to be reasonably effective. Dealing with limited resources, providing what's best for students without forever asking taxpayers for more money, is a challenge we struggle with every day. I have been fortunate to be able to lean on the more experienced members of my school committee for mentor-ship, without which I would be lost. The price of term limits is inexperience, repeated over and over again, and institutional knowledge would be placed in a museum, like so many coats of armor from the days of old.
11
@Walter N. Governing is a skill, but the only requirement for national office is being good at fundraising.
There's no evidence that being in a job you're not qualified for for decades makes you more qualified at it.
Instead of term limits, how 'bout a citizenship test for every person who wants to hold national office as a prerequisite for even running?
"The price of term limits is inexperience"
The price of no term limits is never-ending experience in graft. We don't have a monarchy, but as long as we have people spending their entire lives in Congress, we might as well have one.
There's nothing about Congress that requires 30+ years of experience to accomplish. In fact, we've seen evidence that just the opposite is true today, with freshman members of the House *finally* talking about things that have been verboten forever, while the Old Guard drag their feet on anything of substance.
1
Legislators are elected by the voters of a state to represent the interests of the people. Sometimes a state's economy is dominated by only one or two employers. A lawmaker would be remiss to ignore that corporate or company linked to the public interest, to further a grand institutional plan or scheme, even if grounded in near universal support throughout the country. A lawmaker from West Virginia or Wyoming is usually working for his constituents, like it or not. Let us all show a little understanding for a politician on the wrong side of history. A firm distinction should be made with those dismissing the wants & needs of labor. Those siding with labor will nearly always be ready to offer an alternative way to avoid environmental or human well being disaster.
Leave the decision to keep or discard a politician to the voters.
1
In addition, if legislators need to find a new job after say ten or twelve years, that seems to be incentive to cozy up to industry where their next job will likely be located. A longer-term legislator may continue until retirement, so they would not benefit as much as someone making sure that they have job security after their term limit is up.
1
Bouie does not address the cohort that's most in need of term limits: federal judges. In another example of the Founding Fathers failing to forsee how politics can threaten democracy, they granted lifetime appointments for federal judges, thinking that this was the best way to insulate them from political influence. Now, with patently unqualified people on the Supreme Court and Republican Senators flooding the lower courts with hacks, we can see the danger. Term limits for legislators is debatable. Lack of term limits for federal judges is an emergency.
4
This column is way off the mark. The fact that long serving congresspeople aren't "common" is not the issue. The issue is that the leadership is entrenched, and bought and paid for.
To use just one example, the absence of term limits gave us Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland.
As a thought exercise, we have a two-term limit on the presidency. Do you think this should be removed, and the president can stay as long as he (or, hopefully soon, she) can be re-elected? I advise you to think of an orange example and a red electoral college as you consider your response.
Term limits on all of Congress may be a bit much, I don't know. But term limits on the leadership, or at least their leadership roles, are neither naive nor cynical. Steyer is on to something.
3
@Mr. Mark, Presidential term limits gave us both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
1
Could not agree more. Thanks for putting that out there in such a cogent manner.
I agree term limits would produce a greater problem not an answer. And JB offers many sound better approached.
How about increasing terms in the House to 3-4 years as so much of a 2 year term is spent campaigning for the next brief term.
2
@Eagle Eye How about doing away with campaign financing altogether with publicly financed elections?
How about forcing attendance for every second that Congress is in session, and kicking out those who can't be bothered to actually show up for work? Is there anyone in the US who gets more time off than our representatives?
1
A problem for all politicians is getting re-elected. That’s uses up a lot for time and costs money.
Trump is an extreme example. It seems to be all he ever thinks about.
The consequence is it takes up far to much of their time and effort. And campaign funding is hugely important.
The ideal it seems could be one term. Then a politician would not face re-election and could not be bought by
donations to future campaign. So more time to work and think and not overly influenced by money.
As this is the opposite of the current system, anything that moves in this direction is positive.
Term limits, shmerm limits; until the Electoral College is eliminated, this country will never have democracy.
3
I don't think many Americans know that our first attempt to organize the country, the 1778 Articles of Confederation, HAD term limits. In terms of congressmen, it said "no person shall be capable of being delegate for more than three years, in any term of six years;." That's term limits. When the framers, some of whom had served in the Continetal/Confederation Congress, set about writing the Constitution, they decided these limits were not necessary, thus, the Constitution only has them for the elected members of the Executive branch. Originalists accordingly should oppose any effort to re-insitute term limits, because that is what would happen.
1
@Dave in Northridge, And as I am sure you are aware the Executiive branch limits are recent of course.
Mr. Bouie,
I have often wondered if term limits would not be a good idea, especially if it might prevent disasters like Mitch McConnell, but your strong argument against term limits is most convincing, as are your proposals for better ways to achieve the improvements to our democracy that term-limit proponents claim to want, but, in fact, may not.
Sometimes you can judge a political idea by the company it keeps.
Thanks for opening my eyes. Keep up the good work.
15
I saw Tom Steyer's TV ads on term limits, and they bugged me for two additional reasons:
1. This is not something that as president of the United States a Tom Steyer could even "do:" only the Congress could impose terms limits on themselves. Which leads into the second problem...
2. It simply ain't gonna happen.
So with all the problems our next president will have to tackle, why even waste any energy talking about term limits, when you should be talking about the real stuff?
15
@Jerry Schulz
Actually, just as with the lamentably pie in the sky calls for abolishing the Electoral College, it would take a Constitutional Amendment which Congress cannot do by itself.
3
@carol goldstein - Yes, you're probably right, term limits would take a constitutional amendment, which makes it "ain't gonna happen" on steroids.
Which make me think of another candidate. Mayor Pete. I heard Pete being interviewed, and I'm starting to think this guy's pretty sharp, I kind of like him. But then he starts talking about getting rid of the electoral college and pretty soon it's something about maybe we should merge some of the states (!).
Our once-great country is in rough shape. Priority number one is to once again get a real president in office. But even then, the new person will have their work cut out for them. We need to hear what candidates are going to do to fix our real problems, little stuff like saving our planet and in the process managing things like our weather-related disasters. Any discussions about things like how this would be a wonderful time for us to adopt socialism need to be at best postponed.
Term limits are a feel-good solution in search of a problem. The notion that long-time legislators necessarily become out-of-touch and beholden to lobbyists and contributors is often asserted, but not proven. The real risk, vis-a-vis contributors, is that multi-term legislators, knowing they are highly likely to be re-elected, will put corrupting pressures upon contributors ("I will win with your money or without your money, and without it I might not be particularly interested in getting your bill out of committee...). It's the newbies who are often short of funding.
If the complaint is so-called "gridlock", note the fact that while our legislators often do a poor job with respect to big national issues, they are closely attentive to the wellbeing of their states and districts. The two are related. A secure long-term incumbent might well be more able, and more disposed, to take on those big issues than a newcomer with only a tenuous hold on office, as the columnist notes.
The governmental policy system includes far more people and groups than just legislators; why should the only participants we choose directly always be the rookies?
A common reform fallacy is that we can and should enact laws to do our job as citizens for us. In the US, if you want to get rid of a long-time incumbent, get out and vote. If you want a good example of the effects of term limits, take a close look at Mexico...
7
We all need to be involved all the time in the political process. When we see that out politicians don't care about the public then we vote them out of office. We don't but into the tired old seniority is at stake. We voted two white politicians one on NYC and the other in Boston out of office out when they thought they were so much smarter than the public and it has worked out well. We don't miss the old boys club We the people are represented, for once in a long time.
Term limits are irrelevant if you keep your eye on what these politicians are actually doing in office. We had a similar discussion about Nancy and look how well it has turned out for democracy and America.
4
The advantage of term limits is that older politicians are forced out of office before they become old and feeble, and start clinging to power while their abilities and initiative slowly decline.
One only has to look at the current field of Democratic presidential contenders to see this. Instead of cultivating successors and helping to unify their party, the geriatrics are flailing away at each other, complete with memory lapses and petty tale-telling.
It’s not that ambition is bad, but the Founders understood that men’s ambition had to be channeled and directed for the good of the people. People live longer these days than they did in the eighteenth century. Nature can no longer be counted on to cull the herd. Art, in the form of Legislation, and specifically in the form of Constitutional Term Limits, offers the kindest practical alternative.
1
This column is exactly right. The correct time for a legislator's term of office to end is when they leave voluntarily or don't get re-elected (or, rarely, get recalled).
As Mr. Bouie points out, lobbyists have a huge degree of effective power. But corporate lobbyists (who don't have term limits—maybe they should) are responsible first and foremost to their company's bottom line. Legislators (assuming a functional democracy) are ultimately accountable to voters.
Anything that takes power away from voters, such as term limits, is anti-democratic, and not the kind of "reform" we need now. Reducing the effect of campaign money, getting more fairly drawn districts everywhere, and protecting the vote (especially for those who have been systematically denied it) are better places to focus.
28
@Jason Gohlke
Correct. The problem is treasure, not tenure.
8
In some fascinating way, term limits are very much like the moveable flood doors being proposed at a cost of $116B for New York Harbor: Both put a temporary patch on a problem which, as you point out, should be solved rather than patched.
In the case of the flood doors, climate change is the villain, not a lack of doors in the HUdson River.
IN the case of term limits, removing the inane system of partisan gerrymandering and making running for office more attractive for those qualified to hold office would solve the term limits problem without gutting our institutional knowledge.
Good column.
24
@Lkf Please let the mayor know that instead of flood doors, he needs solve climate change instead. I don't know if he realizes it's that simple.
2
@Mitch4949 Fortunately, the term limits issue seems simpler to address.
1
@Mitch4949 He knows it and is trying. He runs a city that voted a little less than 20% for the climate catastrophic Trump. But there is little he can do about federal policy. Under both Bloomberg and diBlasio NYC has made a lot of good moves to lower our already low per capita carbon footprint. It is not "that simple" when in Ohio where I grew up people will not face facts.
3
There is a country which until 2018 imposed the strictest term limits possible - one term only, no eligibility for reelection ever. That was Mexico.
The result was corruption on a large scale.
For example, one mayor of Mexico City spent most of his term in office living on an estate in Greenwich, Connecticut, collecting the graft that he was given by the plutocrats.
And most House districts (and many Senate seats) are not competitive, except in the primaries. So if a politician can keep his own party in line, he or she can get reelected with no or nominal opposition in the general election.
The solution is more competition, not artificial term limits.
6
It works both ways, weakening Bouie's argument. Good people need to stay in government as long as possible as they hone their expertise. But bad people, who may outnumber them, need to get out of government as soon as possible, yet they often have the superior funding to remain. The most powerful solution to this dilemma is probably the hardest, a large cadre of enlightened and engaged voters.
5
I have a solution: no term limits for politicians we agree with and term limits for those we don’t. Doesn’t that sum it up?
1
"Just 35" Senators is A LOT! We could have term limits and allow politicians to run again after a "break" in their service - something like an unpaid sabbatical. If their constituents love them so much, they would have another opportunity to serve without having the unfair advantage bestowed upon them by being IN office. I also think getting rid of "Citizens United" would be beneficial.
4
@obo, Way to limit out of office everyone who isn't rich.
"Just 35" Senators is A LOT! We could have term limits and allow politicians to run again after a "break" in their service - something like an unpaid sabbatical. If their constituents love them so much, they would have another opportunity to serve without having the unfair advantage bestowed upon them by being IN office. I also think getting rid of "Citizens United" would be beneficial.
1
Term-limits is just one component of a comprehensive reform package that our democracy needs. Public campaign financing is probably required at the same time as well as strong limits on lobbying for former legislators. I agree with Jamelle Bouie's analysis that term-limits alone will be problematic, but I feel like it can be an element in a larger campaign and corruption reform.
2
On term limits: With time, good people get better, bad people get worse.
All people in jobs gain experience: some learn how to make things work better, others learn how to enrich themselves at others' expense better.
What's wrong with term limits: they prevent long-term successes from ever occurring.
11
There should a middle ground on this issue. I agree that term limits rob our legislative bodies of expertise, but surely, politicians who are holding onto their offices into their 80s are robbing the legislative bodies of other important things (youth, demographic representation of the voters, new ideas, etc.). The middle ground should be an age limit. The U.S. military has a mandatory retirement age of 62 but allows people with special skills to serve until 68. One institution that both Democrats and Republicans respect is the military: respect their decision on this and adopt it for all elected offices in America.
3
@UC Graduate This is ageism, pure and simple. If an office holder is indeed not fit to serve, the voters can elect someone else.
I'm not sure about any value in term limits, but one thing that we aren't hearing from candidates is something that would greatly improve the ability of our elected officials to focus on doing the work needed by their constituents.
Publicly fund campaigns. Easy to say, tricky maybe to produce a workable approach, but the current environment demands that pretty much once they take their oath, elected officials have to do one or both of the following
1 - spend a great deal of time trying to raise funds for reelection
2 - try to find who is willing to give them big checks, reducing hours needed in #1
Fundraising time is time away from becoming an able, effective elected official.
Saving time by going for big checks ties the official since the checks have big strings attached.
With current election laws, a 2-year term in the House involves about one year on public business, and one on fundraising. This part needs to change. Then when the voters see how their representative is doing - with ability to focus on the job - the voters can decide if that person stays or goes next election.
6
The system without term limits that Jamelle supports has delivered a self-reinforcing Congress with leadership that excludes new members who do not tow the party line. Mitch McConnell exists because of lack of term limits. Congress is in the business of maintaining power through rules and structure designed to maintain party and individual power. It is also an institution where dynastic rule has taken root. Kennedy, Gore, Bush, Sarbanes, Clinton, Pence, Romney, Udall, Sununu, and the list goes on and on. Government is dysfunctional and the writer is wrong. Change is necessary
2
@Chris It is not the system that "Jamelle supports", the entire field of political science has known for quite some time that term limits are bad. Term limits are to political science what anti-vaccines are to immunology or climate change denial is to ecology.
Also obligatory West Wing reference: "We have term limits, they are called elections"
11
@Chris
Its up to us to be in charge and vote these do nothing politicians out of office. with Trump we see now that fighting for democracy is a full time job. We need to attend townhall meetings, we need to write letters, we need to get our communities involved We need to show up as we do for everything else in our lives
Our lives are involved ,our futures are involved. Please let us all remember that we control our futures not rich, people and ineffective politicians.
If your not a good politician you need to find another job and move on
2
I wholly agree with Mr. Bouie. The problem isn't the people in office, it's the people who pay them. Sever the connection between people in office and monied interests and you remove the incentive for corruption.
1. Publicly finance elections
2. Limit election season to 6 weeks like they do in England
3. Disallow legislators from becoming lobbyists for X number of years after they leave office.
19
Some of the problems we have may be solved not by term limits, but - and I'm the contrarian here, I'm sure - by making terms in the House 4 years (or even six to match the Senate) instead of two. A Representative takes his/her first year in office just learning the job, and the second year raising money and running for office, thereby corrupting the system with money they need to raise from various sources and interests. Then, if reelected, they now spend half of each term again raising money and seeking reelection. Also, an unpopular vote in the House that's also good for the country won't influence the Representative who may have more than one year for that vote to be shown to be correct (or wrong), an having to defend it immediately and constantly. Other problems could be solved by this solution, too, but M. Mouie is correct. Term limits give us inexperience where it's needed. JMHO.
4
Yes, you've convinced me. Everything ELSE in the voting process needs to be addressed: gerrymandering, voter registration, etc.. as you said. It's like free speech. Don't limit bad speech, counter it with good speech; winning arguments, our better angels. Don't 'fix' errors in democracy by hindering democracy. Fix it by maximizing then party neutrality of representative democracy. Have the voters pick their representatives instead of the other way around.
3
I first became aware of Tom Steyer years ago through his Impeach Trump ads. Now he’s running for President. I have nothing against Mr. Steyer, but it seems to me that his most visible constituency is his money.
I would suggest that having begun by calling for this impeachment process, Mr. Steyer could spend more of his money on a campaign in the Red States making the case for a real impeachment trial for the President, one that would include relevant evidence and witnesses.
If he used his money now to focus on Republican Senators and the oath that they have all taken to be impartial where they live, it could have a profound impact on the outcome.
4
It is true that term limits can deprive the legislative branch of necessary expertise and leadership skills. On the other hand, it was by continually re-electing the same people to Congress, that Southern and some other small states have been able, for most of our history, to lock in control of Congress, to an extent totally disproportionate to their populations.
A fair and reasonable compromise would be to have no term limits for election to either house of Congress, but those who have served for more than 12 years would be ineligible to serve as committee chairs, party leaders or Speaker of the House.
2
@HJB If someone were to propose that rule in a nongovernmental, i.e. business, setting would they not be thought to be stark raving mad?
1
Your article echoes exactly my experience when I worked for state government. Lawmakers would spent lots of time trying to learn the intricacies of governing when they were new. Who had the knowledge to "help" them? Lobbyists.
Money for campaigning is also a big issue, as well as the revolving door system of government to private industry where people can use their influence after they have left office.
The answer? Money out. Oversight and accountability in.
14
I almost always agree with you Mr. Bouie, and so I had to take a step back and consider your stance on this. After reflection, I'm afraid I still don't agree with you.
Despite the statistics you note that show that "unending" terms aren't the majority of cases, they still are prevalent enough to allow for abuse of power and stagnation of change. These are reasons enough to enact term limits. But your claim that having higher turnover leads to "weaker" representatives due to their inexperience, is based on the presumption that these "naive" leaders will be prey to devious and powerful special interests and lobbyists. Even if under current laws around lobbying this is true, the answer isn't to keep people in power longer and give them more power, but to reform and rewrite the rules, and to enforce them.
Clearly our system is broken, and much of the cause is the overwhelming influence of money funneled to our leaders by special interests, and those who have seniority and the power that goes with that, get the most, and therefore are obligated to run things for the money providers. We must end this corrupt system! Perhaps we will learn that term limits are too restrictive and cause the problems you suggest, but most Americans would be willing to test that theory. Do you really believe that McConnell would be able to have thwarted democracy as he has done, from Garland to Trump, if h was term-limited? That alone is reason enough for them.
9
@Kingfish52 it sounds like the issue you have is with money in politics, not term limits. Term limits have been proven to actually exacerbate the problems you're lamenting.
5
Tom Steyer is a bit of a con man - he wanted help with the impeachment but then decided to run - he was not honest from the beginning and if he really wants to help progressive principles he should, like Bloomberg, spend to help elect Democrats to the Senate and register voters.
2
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong just based on the fact that Mitch McConnell is currently the longest serving Senator, and is the perfect example kind of leadership we get from no term limits. One needs to look no further for the out of touch, imperialist mindset he brings to our government.
10
@Jsbliv The counter-argument to Moscow Mitch are the much-needed veteran defenders of the Constitution, people like Speaker Pelosi, Adam Schiff, John Lewis and the late Elijah Cummings. Although I may be sympathetic politically to newcomers like AOC, I shudder to think of her as a congressional leader in a term or two or three.
8
I agree with you on term limits, but the "center" of Tom Steyer's platform is Climate Change. He vows to declare a national emergency on the first day in office. You may disagree, but I believe climate change is the bigger issue, and the one worth basing my vote on.
4
I appreciate Mr. Bouie's views in this Op-Ed, and while I agree that (1) were there nonpartisan redistricting in all 50 states, and (2) were there public financing of campaigns, and let's be honest, (3) were Citizens United overturned or, better, ruled moot by a Constitutional Amendment, then the idea of term limits would be unnecessary and, perhaps, harmful.
Meanwhile, down in Mississippi where I was raised, there is a Republican stranglehold on the state, well-funded by money and lies. It will take more than redistricting and changes to money in politics to strike down what is largely a white-boy plutocracy down there (and fyi, I am a white boy). It would take some major legal action to curtail the "questionable" tactics and actions of those few and wealthy who shudder at the thought of Mississippi not being under their collective thumb.
But more to the point, the very idea that experienced legislators are needed in Congress points to the very problem with Government - and ironically, Republicans agree with this: "government" is a morass of overly complicated and needlessly complex "stuff".
Governing need not be so convoluted. Most anyone should be able to grasp the goings-on in Congress, and if not, something is wrong.
Ergo, something is wrong, and redistricting, getting money (and religion) out of politics, and more will not fix it.
What might fix it is less government, more efficiency, and transparency in (most) All Things, thus an ethical Congress.
1
It’s not a matter of quantity, it’s a question of quality, when talking about governance and government.
1
@DKM Life is complex.
Jamelle Bouie is absolutely correct. The real problems with long serving legislators not well serving those they represent can be addressed in much more effective ways than term limits. Many of these making elections more fair and open to all qualified candidates, reducing burdens both to casting a ballot, universal registration, and elimination of gerrymandered districting are all very worthy and important ideas. Unfortunately most are unlikely to be supported by incumbent legislators who benefit from maintaining the current system. Perhaps one Mr. Bouie can add to his list of suggestions is the ability to add through voter petition proposals to not only state and local but national/federal election ballots. While the proposals may not immediately become law it would demonstrate to our legislators overwhelming public support for some issues. Petitions could be allowed on both sides of proposals to allow for expression by all voters. Controversial and or popular proposals on federal ballots would also assist in encouraging increased turnout for elections, a good thing.
3
I think you are correct. Fresh lawmakers are fresh meat for lobbyists and career influencers of legislators. Those well-funded, unelected advocates don't put term limits on themselves, and they get very good at what they do. Having a few old dogs in the pound, crafty politicians who've weathered multiple elections and heard multiple pitches from lobbyists, can be as much a boon to sound legislation as a drag.
Let the people decide. My faith in their collective wisdom has been shaken by the rise of Trump, but I don't see how kicking legislators out of office just because they've won a couple of elections will improve things.
5
The term limit on the presidency isn't a good idea either. Experience certainly must be a plus in that office as well. Presidents should have to defend what they do in their second term if they want to run for a third. The way it is now the president isn't really held to account for the second term at all. As the amendment was written, Truman, as the last president eligible to do so, could have run for a third term in 1952, but he knew there was no way he could win that election.
4
Thank you so much for this well researched and well reasoned article. The knee jerk call for term limits gets me crabby every time. Here in Oregon we have mostly excellent representation by some of the longer serving Senators and Congresspeople and I for one am very grateful for their expertise and dedication. Thanks too for offering the right alternatives: easier voting, fair districting and limitations on special interest contributions.
4
I think the belief in term limits as being a net positive is partially tied to the trend of devaluing true expertise, talent, and experience and overvaluing "relatability" and being "in touch" in politics and in so many other disciplines.
Of course when it comes to something people REALLY value like a Doctor to perform life saving surgery on a family member or a Quarterback to lead your favorite team everyone wants the expert, the best, the one with the track record.
We should probably keep the good ones around in politics too. Even if some, like quarterbacks, sometimes try to stay a little too long.
13
We already have term limits... they're called ELECTIONS.
Let the people decide, not some arbitrary number.
117
Definitely limits. Say 20 in the House, 24 for Senate, 25 for Supremes. That's enough. Incumbency is too powerful. We need limits.
6
Term limits. Fresh faces. New ideas. Worried about experience and institutional knowledge? Make potential candidates take some sort of exam to qualify to run. Set up a non-partisan mentor program.
We get lots of new government officials every 4 (or 8) years, depending on the whims of the President. Some with no government experience...or even experience in the subject matter of the position to which they are appointed. No problem with term limits for those folks.
4
@Nadia Show me how term limits has made things better in California.
1
Limiting the terms of elected legislators is a non solution to a myriad of problems. Steyer will not come close to winning the Democratic nomination despite his billions and the mass advertising they can buy. We would all be better off in the long run if Steyer (as well as his fellow billionaire candidate, Michael Bloomberg) would spend their money on simply defeating Trump, instead of trying to get elected. That said, Steyer does make some cogent points in pointing out the some of the significant shortcomings of the current political status quo. But his solution, term limits, is a non sequitur. Term limits will not solve any of the many serious problems we face, and as Jamelle Bouie underscores very well, will actually make matters worse. In most, if not all of the states where term limits have been adopted, they have made matters worse, not better. Steyer simply throws out term limits as the solution to our problems, without offering any connection between those problems and the supposed magical curative powers of term limits.
4
Term limits are one of these fake reforms that keep sprouting up presenting themselves as easy solutions to our difficult problems. If we had term limits in Congress, we wouldn't have our nation's most effective legislator, Nancy Pelosi.
But the reason I feel compelled to comment on this column is to express my contempt for the never-before-elected Tom Steyer, whose vanity presidential campaign makes Mike Bloomberg's assault on the airwaves masquerading as a presidential campaign look credible in comparison. It's shameful that this billionaire dilettante managed to buy his way onto the debate stage. It takes some serious obliviousness to say you're the only candidate on that stage to make climate change your #1 priority when Bernie Sanders is standing right there.
It's also indicative of our "Alice in Wonderland" times that Steyer wouldn't have been able to present himself as this great champion in the fight against climate change if not for having made his fortune in large part by investing in coal.
From a 2014 New York Times story: "Over the past 15 years, Mr. Steyer’s fund, Farallon Capital Management, has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into companies that operate coal mines and coal-fired power plants from Indonesia to China, records and interviews show."
20
@Mitch Gitman
Great comment.
3
Steyer is absolutely right in term limits.
The argument that the author uses that there are only 35 members that are in control for over 10 years, proves how wrong his argument is.
In the way most political systems work, the longer you are a member the more powerful their positions become and the more difficult it gets to make any changes. The status quo the most deadly of diseases in politics is kept in place by these older members who hate change, or only approve change when it increases their power.
Numerical arguments used here show only lack of understanding of the power of politics as usual.
4
I think you miss an important question - even though many politicians are unable to have long careers in office, do most still attempt to have them? In other words, while in office, are they constantly focused on getting re-elected, even if they are ultimately unsuccessful?
Also, having people rotate through Congress who have real economic interests outside of government would - I think - be a good thing.
4
@Citizen Yet the evidence from state s that have term limits does not show the results term limit supporters claim.
4
@Citizen
I think the opposite of your last paragraph is true.
I understand the frustration leading to a call for term limits. I share it. But we have a form of term limits already. They are called elections.
The secret is to get involved and work hard for or against those candidates who are or are not working hard for you. And hold them accountable either way.
And yes, having two representatives in Montana who refuse to hold public meetings, I understand it’s not always easy. But for elections to work you have to try.
13
@avrds does that mean you'd support no term limits on the presidency? Let the voters decide?
2
I agree and would even go further. The 22nd Amendment, limiting the President to two terms, was a mistake and ought to be repealed.
3
@PL
Obama would have behaved better if he had believed he could be President indefinitely. His first term was managed to get re-elected and he went hog wild during his second term.
In his first meeting with the loyal opposition, he insulted the minority leadership by saying elections have consequences [and you have no power.] Had the possibility existed for him the remain in power for 12 or 16 years, it might have crossed his mind that he would at some point need to have Republican support.
Even after losing the super majority, Democrats crammed down Obamacare despite massive public opposition. Despite massive spending by big medicine, the Democrats lost seats in the Senate and the majority in the House.
During his second term, he imposed regulations that actually violated the law and were frequently suppressed by the judiciary. He gave two planeloads of taxpayer cash to Iran in violation of the law, which they used to fund terrorism. He made payments to his buddies the insurance companies that had never been appropriated.
@PL
I'm grown dubious about the tripartite Presidential system in general, actually. There are parliamentary systems that simply work better. But as long as we have one, I think Presidents should be allowed eligibility to serve at least 12 years in office. Capable executive leadership is harder to find than legislators. And eight years isn't enough time for any Chief Executive to either see the major projects initiated by their administration through to fruition or to face the consequences of their poor decisions.
There are presently so many ways to game the American system that it isn't even funny. Between the absurd maldistribution of electoral votes and staggered 6-year terms for Senators, it's proving to be easier than ever for an entrenched minority to keep the status quo ante of power relations in place. The reforms that are really needed are 6-year terms for the Presidency and 4-year terms for the Senate (possibly without staggered elections.) Along with a more rational form of regional federalism than the bizarre de facto gerrymandering of "States" that are widely disparate in both population and territory that has resulted from a patchwork of Manifest Destiny territorial acquisitions, the purchase of Alaska, and the colonial transfer of the Hawaiian islands to US rule.
In other words, we need a new Constitutional Convention. But that would implicitly entail popular de-conditioning from the quasi-theocratic worship of the Founding Fathers, so...
1
@ebmem It's all perspective and facts. The money to Iran was their money being returned to them. McConnell did everything he could to assure that Obama got no cooperation from the republicans and verbalized that his top priority was make Obama a one term president. As for executive orders, trump is outstripping Obama on that and the republicans aren't complaining. So clearly your bias is showing and it has nothing to do with term limits.
2
Much of what our legislators do is complicated. Even seemingly innocuous votes can have serious lasting impact for years. Plus our system of government is filled with many players: lobbyists, highly diversified electorates, moving parts within one's own party, moving parts in the opposition party. . . It can years to become good at legislation. Why make arbitrary rules limiting terms. as Mr. Bouie says, it should be up to the voters to impose term limits when they vote.
13
The problem with your article, it ignores the fact that the only time
That these congressmen and senators tell the truth is when they are not running for re election.
I will sacrifice experience for truth, and doing what is best for the country, rather than what insures re election.
4
@Shp
So to your argument, Steyers plan of limiting terms to 12 years, then Congressional Reps won't get to the truth telling until their 5th term, and the second terms of both Senators and the President.
That argument only holds, although I don't agree with it, if politicians are limited to a single term.
I totally agree! This balderdash comes from people who are naive about how government works. I worked for over 305 years in a large local government. Before and after term limits. Before, there were Council members who really knew the limits and abilities of the city programs. They & the staff could solve problems; they didn’t have to spend two years learning which departments did what, who to call, etc. And the ‘power’ went to lobbyists. The Civil Service knew the details and also had the institutional knowledge. Plus, once the elected ones were in, they spent time looking around for the next office.
41
Your argument that it takes forever for incumbents to learn who does what and how and that therefor only they know how to run departments, cities states countries, is one of total arrogance and overreach. Name one department that functions well on its own holding on desperately to the bussiness as usual model.
Most city, state and federal departments work on a non change policy, creating situations where they will always be way behind the time, extremely slow, indecently bureaucratic
(meaning they take all control in their own hands, refusing change).
Yes there might be some very smart people working there, but they are a minority that can get very few things done because the majority of their bureaucrats despise change.
If you want to be in charge become a politician, which of course non of them want to.
Bee: 305 years! I support term limits at 300 years. After that, you surely would be out of touch and far too old to be an effective legislator.
31
Mr. Bouie is correct in my opinion. Career politicians have become something seen as evil but in fact, are a good thing for America (although McConnell proves to be a point for term limits). I am disappointed in my career Senators in Kansas, Moran, and Roberts, for essentially sticking their head in the sand on Trump. But, in their defense, they have chosen the high road for the most part and worried about the NAFTA restructuring.
We need experienced politicians like Joe Biden to be in charge of the government. The best example of the positives that come with experienced politicians is the Great Society of LBJ. He was an FDR New Dealer that became president. He brought that experience and guidance into the Oval Office. He ruined his good name through Vietnam but war decisions have ruined a lot of good politicians. What do we get when we elect non-politicians to important posts: Trump.
10
Any government official who is in their last term will be looking for their next job. Where better to look than to individuals and corporations that have business with the government? No official in their last term will have to care at all what their constituents want.
I agree, term limits are a bad idea.
14
I strongly disagree based upon our current state of affairs. Your prescription for a cure hasn't been able to get any traction. Do you think Republicans will give up gerrymandering with our nations demographics shifting as they are. Campaign finance reform isn't on the radar of either party. I still remember Tom DeLay passing out lobbyist checks to Republican congressman on the floor of the House and Citizens United has now created corporate super citizens
All of your remedies lack the political will to get even a discussion going. The current list of Democratic candidates for president barely give it a passing thought. Term limits at least will restrict the damage certain bad guys like Mitch McConnell or a Lindsey Graham can do. We have long placed term limts on the presidency and governorships without apparent damage.
7
@Steve None of this would be solved by term limits - things will only get worse. Again- look at the site that have term limits and show me how they have improved.
Because members of Congress can be voted out of office or replaced term limits already exist in our constitutional republic.
Indeed any voter can choose to do both. Running for Congress against an incumbent and voting for themselves along with others.
The main thing that Tom Steyer gets wrong is that like Donald Trump he has never run for nor been elected to any government political office.
America cannot afford another rookie President. Even one who has been more successful at business and who is much brighter and wiser than the incumbent.
7
I am not an expert on Term Limits and their potential good or ill.
But if you limit an individuals ability to serve, all that you are doing is to generate greater focus on them during their potential time in office.
I agree with Bouie that there are more efficient tools that would mitigate the need for term limits including increased access to early voting and in this day and age, voting via other methods than the polling place.
I also believe that public funding of elections would dramatically alter the way our officials seek office.
So for Tom Steyer's term limits proposals, I see the value of his shortcut to get there, I happen to agree with Bouie that the end result will not match the intent.
That said, I believe that Steyer's central gift to the debate is a focus on climate change. Here, he should continue his charge to shine light on what will inevitably be the gift of one generation to the next.
While national debt, international perception, and the value of what does America stand for are terribly heavy loads that our children will have to master, the global climate and our abuse of our natural resources are inescapable by all.
It is wonderful for "us" that the markets are way up, but Steyer's call that "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" while not properly heard, is the real Revere truth.
4
Mr Bouie is spot on with this column. Term limits simply empower unelected officials and special interest groups. If Steyer was really interested in dramatic political and cultural reform he could be talking about mandatory national service after high school, required voting by all eligible voters or real preferential voting. Neither party talks about the most obvious and simple reforms that might actually serve to unite the country, instead thay are more interested in slicing and dicing the country into ever narrower special interest groups in the hope of gaining a slight edge, ephemeral as that edge may be.
7
@Nick Wheeler
Not to mention moving election day to a weekend.
1
This was an interesting read, Mr. Bouie, with good points, however, wouldn't the same argument work for presidential terms? We limit them to two but wouldn't the expertise and voter sentiment argument apply here as well? I wonder if the answer to that question would change depending who was in office at the moment.
12
@Stephen True - remember that term limits was enacted by constitutional amendment only after the death of FDR, so relatively recently in our history. But I think you can argue that the office of the Presidency, with such unique and huge power, is worthy of term limits where the term of legislators is not. And Presidents can still run for other offices after they have used up their Presidential limit.
4
The president is too powerful not to have term limits.
1
Mr. Bouie makes a very good case why the term limits proposed by Tom Steyer might not be effective, but does ignore one factor, we could have less adept thieves enriching themselves at our expense if they didn't gain institutional knowledge. Mr. Bouie does have some other compelling arguments that the term limits portion of Mr Steyer's good government proposals might not accomplish what is intended, but I was a little bit disappointed in this piece Mr Louie didn't discuss some the proposal for limited referendums, if that could be made possible. A few referendum questions on the ballot on election day could over time, override special interest cash on a host of issues that our legislators have done the opposite of what the overwhelming number of citizens want. Those issue run from gun control to campaign finance reform and well beyond, and might be the most efficient way of draining the swamp without having to wait for Mitch and his cronies to die of old age, while still in office.
10
@Kevin
If you look at the recent history of referenda in California, you will find a lot of special interest funding of both petition gathering and advertising. On a national scale the money (courtesy of Citizens United) would be enormous and I don't even want to think about the kind of advertising campaigns that it would buy.
2
@Kevin Wrong - I live in a referendum state (Oregon was one of the first to have them) and they are easy pickings for big money interest. Complex issues that should be the preserve of the legislature and long debate and negotiation are put into simplistic initiatives that usually disguise the fact that they are sponsored by, and benefit, big corporate interests. This of you arguing for term limits here should follow some of the links that Bouie provides in this column - the data on the impact of term limits in states where they are enacted do not support the argument for term limits.
4
Unfortunately all it takes is one bad apple (ie, McConnell) to ruin a legislative body. I don't agree as I think the benefits of term limits outweigh the risks.
15
@Susan Wells
I deplore McConnell. However he is the Senator of Kentucky, not of my home state of Minnesota. It is up to the voters of Kentucky to decide if he's doing a good job or not for the people of Kentucky. He wasn't elected to serve all Americans. He's in a position of control of the Senate through his party. I don't like McConnell and I voted for two MN senators. That's all I can do. It seems you are from Nevada. Convince your fellow Nevadans to vote for two Nevada Senators. All it takes is 51 Senators from the Democratic Party and McConnell loses control. Better yet, 66 and the Democratic party has super-majority. Vote!
22
@BWCA
I would say any member of congress is elected to represent his/her constituents and to serve the entire nation.
Naive, I know, but that should be the goal.
1
@Susan Wells
I’m going to jump in here and agree with you. I’m a fellow Nevadan and I have no problem with the term limits we have out here (12 years of total service for the Legislature//two 4 year terms for governor) I like the concept of new blood as a way of avoiding ossification and gridlock. That’s not to say that term limits are in any way a panacea for all that ails our dysfunctional fact-denying federal government (e.g. climate change challenges and Trump’s corruption being just two egregious examples). Plus, full disclosure: I am not an anti-government conservative. I spent 12 years in the NV Dept of Business and Industry. Yes, reeducating newly elected reps can be frustrating, but most issues are not quantum physics. When it comes to voter preferences which Mr. Bouie so eloquently championed, without noting the perils of entrenched power (e.g. Sen. McConnell who is now a de facto chief executive)—those voters should elect people with the basic government background knowledge to be somewhat oriented and functional on day one. Given the amount of information available online (at .gov sites) total ignorance is no excuse. Government leadership should not be viewed as a job for life. These reps need to get in, do the job they were put there to do and get out.
2
The author omits the most important point. The biggest problem with our government is not long tenures. It is corruption. Term limits would only encourage and accelerate the process of “public servants” cashing in on their time in office and bought votes by joining lobby firms, “think tanks,” boards of directors, etc.
The only hope for our government and country is to get money out of politics. Mitch McConnell makes $193,400 a year. Yet somehow he is worth $23 million (and probably more). Nancy Pelosi makes $223,000 a year. Yet somehow she is worth $27 million (and probably more). And their choice constituents are far wealthier, courtesy of their bribes. That is just wrong.
22
@Pj5106
In both cases the answer is straightforward. Very financially successful family members. McConnell married into a Taiwanese conglomerate. Pelosi's husband is a very successful businessperson. Their political values are very different, personally I favor Pelosi's, but neither is bribable. FYI Congressional financial reporting requires reporting household numbers.
California has seen the effects of legislative term limits. It moves up the cashing in. It leaves the body without strong, seasoned leaders. Imagine a business world with C suites filled with folks with less than 10 years of business experience.
4
@Pj5106 Not sure about Moscow Mitch, but Nancy Pelosi's wealth is mostly due to her husband's real estate investments.
2
How effective are members of Congress who have been in office for 20 plus years? Perhaps there is a middle ground with limits so a proper median can be a good compromise. Limiting politicians, as well as Supreme Court justices, by the way, is the correct way to go in these fast moving times. It’s easy to become out of touch as history gets re-written at such a rapid rate.
7
I agree with most things Mr. Bouie, but not this. I have one word. Corruption. Would Wall Street have been able to get away with the $29Trillion theft that they doubled down on if they didn't have decades of their people spinning through the revolving door? Nope.
6
@Patrick Lovell
Um, Your argument is a tad inconsistant.
I agree it would have been a good thing if we had had laws that held business leaders more accountable for knowing what went on in their companies but we did not. That still needs to be remedied but until people like you don't understand that was the real problem it will not get fixed. I'm not a lawyer but I used to do securities law for a living. It is very lax on following responsibility up the chain of command in large organizations. Dodge Frank added a few bells and whistles but more is needed.
@Patrick Lovell Yet, those states that have term limits have MORE problems with corruption because neophyte amateur legislators are much more dependent on lobbyists and donors to write laws and steer them through the government system - follow the links Bouie has provided in this column. The data contradicts your argument.
Jamelle - Has anyone done a study on the effects (or lack thereof) of term limits in the states where Governors are termed out?
3
@PS These tend to be "weak governor" states. I grew up in them. In NC the legislature lorded it over a weak governor's office, and in SC the legislature dominated a weak governor's office *and* the individual county governments. ("Home Rule" only came to the counties of SC in 1975.)
@PS I believe he has cited some of that in links in the column.
Public funding of campaigns would be a huge step in the right direction to bring in new people.
Ultimately, limiting terms is up to voters. If enough voters in a CD or state disapprove of the job done by their representative or senator, they need to vote in the primary and general elections. AOC showed how a compelling candidate and committed voters can refuse to return a member of congress for another term. If you don’t vote, you shouldn’t complain.
8
I oppose term limits as they are denying voters the right to have their say.
However, I would really like to see a set retirement age. I can't understand why anyone would want to work past the age of say, 75, other than an addiction to power.
25
@democritic I agree, but also might suggest that we create some kind of emeritus body for lawmakers who still want to serve. Institutional history is a valuable asset and some of those folks would be better off serving the constitution than merely sitting on the boards of big corporations.
9
@Zarathustra I don't think there's a rule now against a retired lawmaker giving advice and support to newer lawmakers.
2
@democritic
“...an addiction to power.”
Or maybe they have spent many years helping their state through economic downturns and brought much needed education or infrastructure to the state they represent. The aging process is not a fixed thing and some people can be very effective at a much more advanced age than others. It doesn’t always have to equal corruption.
7
Thank you, Mr. Bouie. One thing I'd add would be that term limited representatives and senators, instead of focusing constantly on fundraising would be focusing constantly on which lobbying firm they would hope to join, or which corporation's board they hoped to be appointed to, or which PAC, think tank, whatever, they hoped to head, plus Fox News and all other lucrative future employment opportunities. Their whole time in office, instead of the last part of their time in office, would be about their careers after leaving office.
58
@Stephen Merritt
Perhaps you would like The Church (which one?) to simply appoint candidates for sainthood to Congress? Lobbying after office could be more strictly controlled--perhaps by constitutioal amendment since Congress is unlikely to do this for themselves, but as to the rest, surely you don’t think that someone who serves two terms in the House and leaves at age 45 or so should not be able to find a new job in a somewhat related field?
1
@Stephen Merritt How does that differ from what we have now?
1
I have been on both sides of this issue.
What finally changed my mind re term limits, ie having them?
Trump.
The greatest threat to our democracy since the Civil War imo.
6
@Paul Trump's term should have been limited to one day. If anything brings him down, it's Nancy Pelosi's 30+years expertise in the House.
2
@Jeanettebp thank you for your reply. Yes. Pelosi number one job is to keep the House and also help democrats keep the Senate and WH by reaching over to any moderates on the other side.
Too many democrats double down on issues that are important to states like NY or Calif that they already have instead of trying to win swing states.
1
You make a lot of sense. Why not deal with the real problem of special interest money? That seems to me to be the root of most of the problems with Washington.
102