Term Limits Debate

Summary

• An introduction to this article
• A brief history of the Term Limits debate dating back to our founding
• The argument against Term Limits
• The root of the problem that Term Limits will not solve
• Quotes from The Founding Fathers and Framers on Term Limits
• Common Concerns & Rebuttals

Introduction

"[N]othing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection [than term limits]..." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 72

Donald Trump recently announced his support for going through with a campaign promise of proposing Term Limits, so I figure it's a good time to talk about this issue.

Term limits, especially in our current political climate, is one of those ideas that seems like a no-brainer, but has many flaws. I was once all in favor of term limits until I had a wise friend explain to me that term limits will solve nothing, at best, and will accelerate the current problems we face today, at worst. Over time, my mind changed, and I grew to oppose term limits.

History

I want to start off by saying that the concept of Term Limits is not something new. In fact, the Articles of Confederation (our first constitution) included term limits. Also, in the 1787 Convention, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists spent a lot of time debating term limits, and the side opposed to it ultimately prevailed. In the next section, I'll go over what some of those arguments against Term Limits were as well as some other good arguments I've read.

The Argument Against Term Limits

The arguments against Term Limits can be summed up in a few bullet points:

• Term Limits extend the current lame duck session of Congress, from one month, to two years for Representatives, and six years for Senators.
• The prospect of being re-elected means that there's some accountability to the voters, whereas with Term Limits, the politicians will spend their last term working to advance their special interests' agenda in order to pave the way for their life in the private sector once they're out of office.
• If people are electing corrupt politicians, there's nothing that can stop this from happening, especially term limits, other than educating the people.
• Term Limits will not produce better candidates, as evident with term limits being placed on the Presidency. In today's political environment, you're simply replacing one swamp creature with another.
• Term Limits punish Statesmen, such as Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, and prevent people from locking in a Statesman to represent them for a long time.
• Term Limits ultimately limit our choice.
• Elections are essentially Term Limits.
• The Framers left us with plenty of other tools to address the issues we face today.

The Root of The Problem

The harsh truth is, all our problems are caused by us, because we elect these frauds into office.

Let's take Mitch McConnell, for example.  He's been serving as a US Senator for Kentucky since 1985, the Majority Whip between 2003-2007, Minority Leader between 2007-2015, and Majority Leader since 2015.

Despite advancing the Liberal agenda for over 20 years, Kentucky (a red state) continues to elect him. Why? How has Mitch McConnell managed not to face primaries, or lose a primary, leading up to this point? How come his constituency hasn't demanded that this be his final term and seek to address this grievance with the Republican Party so that they may step in and exert their influence and pressure? Conservative Kentucky voters could even issue an ultimatum and decide that they will go nuclear and vote for his Democrat opponent if it means getting him out of office.

Instead, they've done none of that, and as a result, Mitch McConnell has managed to stay in office for over 20 years and become the biggest power player among Republicans.

Term Limits essentially state, "We're too stupid and lazy (to elect better representatives). Please save us from ourselves, Government!" That kind of thinking is Liberal and what we sometimes point to when mocking Liberals. And yet, here we are, adopting that same line of thinking and fooling ourselves into believing that it's "Conservative". It's issues like this why this site was created.

Quotes From The Founders and Framers

"[N]othing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection [than term limits]... One ill effect of the exclusion would be diminution of the inducements to good behavior... [rather] than when they were permitted to entertain a hope of obtaining, by meriting, a continuance of them." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 72

"[Term Limits] tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a re-appointment. It was saying to him, 'make hay while the sun shines.'" - Gouverneur Morris, Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787

"[T]he people should be at liberty to choose the ablest and best men... yet, upon the present [term limits] supposition, the people voluntarily resign this right, and shackle their own choice..." - John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true correct of abuses of constitutional power" - Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820, ME 15:278

“Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election.” - Roger Sherman, June 26, Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention

“[Term Limits] will tempt him to make the most of the short space of time allotted him, to accumulate wealth and provide for his friends.” - Roger Morris, July 19, Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention

Common Concerns & Rebuttals

We need to do something!

I agree, but Term Limits will not solve the issue. I will not go into great detail on what needs to be done, but this is the crux of it:

• Educate the people
• Find people who want to help and organize
• Hold the elected representative accountable by attending town hall meetings and putting them on the spotlight
• Gather support, then write to the respective party and demand accountability, or have them pressure the offending politician to not seek re-election, by threatening to vote for the other party's candidate if push comes to shove
• If all else fails, and if you've managed to organize enough people, you can exercise the nuclear option and effectively end their term by voting for the opposition. It's a tough pill to swallow, but in the case of, say, McConnell, he would've been out of office a long time ago and another Republican, preferably a Statesman, would be elected afterwards.

Congress shouldn't be a career.

Fair point. If you don't think it should be a career, I don't have a response that will ever change your mind about that.

I do want to say, though, that if people really feel strongly about this, they already have the power to change the pieces. Representatives are up for election every two years and Senators every six years. When they're up for re-election, the people have the choice of ending their career or putting them back in office.

There's too much concentrated power in congress and in the hands of career crooks

This is true. However, will changing the pieces fix the problem? Let's look at the Presidency. Despite having different parties on both sides and term limits, the same agenda has somehow managed to be advanced, sometimes packaged in different ways to appeal to either side. Ironically enough, many Presidents have campaigned on promising to change the status quo, and ended up becoming part of the status quo, themselves.

As Carroll Quigley stated:

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” - Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time

As much as we all want to fix the corruption in politics, Term Limits doesn't address the issue. The agenda and crooked money is still there, ready for the next taker. All Term Limits would have accomplished is to redistribute that wealth and changed the pieces.

Term Limits is the lesser of two evils

Is it, really? Let's break down the pros and cons:

Pros:

• No more (crooked) career politicians past a certain number of terms
• A one-time punishment for the bad politicians who have served a long time

Cons:

• No more career statesmen past a certain number of terms
• No more having to face their voters on their final term
• A more hastened advancement of their special interests' agenda
• More politicians working to secure their life after public office
• Lame Duck Session extends, from one month, to 2 years for Representatives and 6 years for Senators

Neutral:

• Concentrated power now becomes diversified power
• Concentrated money in politics is now redistributed to other politicians
• No guarantee that the next elected politician will be better, or worse, than the last

Feel free to add your own Pros and Cons below if you think I missed any. But, from my perspective, it seems there's not an upside to Term Limits to Congress, and thus, not really the "lesser of two evils".