Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Congressional Term Limits: Yea or Nay?

With many Americans feeling frustrated with government, the topic of Congressional term limits has come up in many of the conversations I have had lately. I sense a growing sentiment that demands we, the voters, "throw 'em all out," to literally and figuratively clean House (and Senate). America needs a fresh start, so the argument goes. As frustrated as I am in the current political reality, I could not disagree more with these folks who wish to sweep clean the halls of Congress.

The current system is part of the system of checks and balances. The Constitution sets different conditions and limitations on each of the three branches of government. The judiciary is a lifetime appointment. The executive may only be elected for two four year terms and no more. Congress enjoys a blend of the previous two, what I would call "discretionary lifetime" service. Currently, members of Congress may serve for the rest of their political lives, so long as voters continue to re-elect them, so long as voters continue to approve of their continued service.

The overall effect is one of continuity and stability. There are no wholesale turnovers in our leadership in Washington, and I would argue that that is a good thing. Here, the example of the Palestinian Authority is instructive. In the course of one election day, the PA government was transformed from moderation to something far more radical with the selection of Hamas as the ruling political party. This sudden and dramatic shift in the political tides of the Middle East have set the rest of the world wondering and hoping that Hamas has been mischaracterized as a terrorist organization. Only time will tell.

As far as I know, there are no term limits in elective Palestinian politics. However, I cite this as an example of a relatively new democratic government that is in the process of building itself. One could also look to the example of Iraq, a new democracy, built from scratch, which is barely functioning, if at all. Term limits in Congress would effectively require us to continuously rebuild two-thirds of the federal government--the executive and legislative branches. Arguably, we could possibly see a relative destabilization of the judiciary, if the current rightward swing of the federal courts is taken into evidence.

Simply put, the lack of term limits has by no means brought us to the current circumstances of political imbalance. The push for such limits, in fact, set the conditions for such an imbalance to occur. The Gingrich-led "Contract with America" in 1994 held as a major plank in its platform the idea of term limits for Congress. Voters in that mid-term election signed on to the contract and voted in a congressional sea change, and the Republican Party gained control of the House of Representatives for the first time in fifty years.

Certainly, many Americans will argue that we have seen our own right-wing, theocratic government coup, and I would cite the 1994 Republican promise of term limits as a key factor in the success of the Gingrich "revolution." Republicans presented a convincing case that the only way to end the "gridlock" and move towards reforming government was to push the old guard out and to bring in fresh faces and new ideas. It was a brilliant strategy and it worked. However, it is worth noting that, since taking control of the House and later the Senate, the Republican rally for term limits has all but fallen silent.

Under congressional term limits, American government would find itself more susceptible to the pendular swings of our national political mood. The center would certainly shift, if it could hold at all. One could argue, even now, that centrist politics in Washington are all but invisible.

Over the past several years, I have heard increasing complaints that American government suffers from a lack of true statesmanship, that we are hard pressed to find among our current officials the kind of strong, honest leadership we saw in Roosevelt, Truman, or Eisenhower, in Tip O'Neill, Eugene McCarthy or Adlai Stevenson. Currently, I see no reason to throw Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Patrick Leahy out of the Senate simply because of the length of their service. So too should Senators Lugar, Hatch, and Frist continue to serve at the pleasure of their constituents. Democracy is about the choices we make at the ballot box, and term limits only restrict our choices based on an arbitrary limit on the quantity of an individual's service not on a critical evaluation of the quality of her or his service to the nation. Moreover, true statesmanship does not develop overnight. If we find ourselves bereft of true leadership now, imagine Washington DC with a revolving door.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home