Lots of talk about term limits last week — in Washington.
Of all places.
What bizarre chain of events caused career congressmen to start jawboning and horse-trading about the popular reform that most of them viscerally oppose?
It was the work-product of a small number of hardcore conservative Republican legislators, a mere 20, flexing their strength and commitment at a critical political point — the election of the House Speaker — and armed with concrete demands.
“We offered Kevin McCarthy terms last evening that he rejected,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told reporters last Tuesday. One of those? “We’ve sought a vote in [the] first quarter of the 118th Congress on term limits.”
By week’s end, however, McCarthy had been elected Speaker of the House . . . but only after having pledged to bring to the floor that congressional term limits amendment, authored by Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC), one of the 20 holdouts, along with making other concessions.
Meet the Press host Chuck Todd yesterday cast shade on the effort, calling these “show votes.”
While it’s true that incumbents are unlikely to vote for the term limits amendment in the 2/3 supermajority the Constitution requires, or for the balanced budget amendment for which the holdouts, mostly Freedom Caucus members, also secured a commitment from McCarthy.
“We’ve got to start taking steps to make fundamental change in America,” Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) told Todd. And putting every U.S. representative on record on term limits sounds like a great first step for early 2023.
Worth the battle.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Midjourney
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
8 replies on “The Demand for Term Limits”
“In ordinary discussion of limitation on the time that a political office may be held, two points are not made directly as often as they should be.
“Opponents of term limits should not contrast the outcomes expected to obtain under term limits with those imagined to result under an idealized representative government. Ostensibly representative government is regularly not very representative; many participants in the political process — including individual voters — work actively to subvert the extent to which it is representative; and it can never be close to being perfectly representative. Illustrating the first of these points, note how often most voters feel compelled to select a least detestable candidate amongst a field of knaves and of fools, and note that major programmes opposed by a majority of voters are adopted by legislatures. Illustrating the second point, note people who vote in “open” primaries of the party they disfavor, hoping to effect selection of a weaker candidate for that party. To understand the third point, consider what would be required to select representatives whose preferences operationally mirrored those of the more general public.
“Term limits change the incentive system for political officials and for would-be political officials. They can no longer make life-time careers in holding one office. If meaningful term-limits became the norm across all elected offices, it would no longer be practical for the typical elected official to make a life-time career of holding a series of elected offices. Those who held office would be less beholden to political machines and cartels, they would have less to sell, they would have to be proficient at more than office-seeking. More of them would be more representative than now, albeït still quite imperfectly so.”
Not only are these ‘show’ votes, they are dishonest. It’s easy to go on the record as ‘supporting’ term limits when you know it can’t pass either the Senate or House with the required two thirds. Let those twenty elected officials who believe in term limits back up their position with action. Retire at the end of the term.
Does anyone believe McCarthy will follow through with any of the concessions he agreed to, some in writing?
Even if he does, will it really make a difference? It’s not clear what the House would do if presented with a massive bill that originated or was modified in the Senate. The House might try to cut spending but the Senate could vote to change it and spend even more. What happens then?
How does supporting a massive change to a system, rather than attempting to conserve that system, jibe with the notion that McCarthy’s opponents are “hard-core conservatives?”
A better term than “conservative” is desirable, much as a better term that “progressive” or “liberal” is to be desire for those in the principal opposing coalition.
In the former case (and, if you wish, in the latter), what do you suggest?
There’s no conservatives, there’s no liberals, there’s only money. Destroy the money and you destroy the lifetime advantage of staying in office.
Amen.