The need for Term Limits

[mswax]

I've been giving a lot of thought as to WHY there are NO republicans willing to do what I'm sure they know is the moral and just thing.  They seem to care more about getting re-elected.  It got me thinking about how they would act if they weren't worried about re-election.  I think we see time and again with both presidents as well as senators and congressmen, in their last term they take more risks.  They are concerned about their legacy.  The country needs that from our elected officials EVERY term.

I don't know that the people in power will ever change the rules to essentially put themselves out of a job, but I think it could go a long way to better politics.

Steps off soapbox...

[rupertpenny]

Eh, I'm against term limits for members of Congress. I think, in general, it is helpful for members to build long term relationships with colleagues. I also think that the institutional knowledge acquired by members who spend 10, 20, 30 years in congress is helpful for getting shit done.

I'll be the first to admit that congress is not exactly functioning as it should lately, but I don't think term limits are the answer.

[lilac05]

I agree.

I'm hoping that McCain has decided that this is his last term & goes out making big waves. He has the history and personality to do it.

Unlike Grassley who has been in office 600 years and will always just go with the flow. If he ever had a spine, he lost it many, many years ago.

[GilliC]

Jan 31, 2017 9:37:40 GMT -5 mswax said:

I've been giving a lot of thought as to WHY there are NO republicans willing to do what I'm sure they know is the moral and just thing.  They seem to care more about getting re-elected.  It got me thinking about how they would act if they weren't worried about re-election.  I think we see time and again with both presidents as well as senators and congressmen, in their last term they take more risks.  They are concerned about their legacy.  The country needs that from our elected officials EVERY term.

I don't know that the people in power will ever change the rules to essentially put themselves out of a job, but I think it could go a long way to better politics.

Steps off soapbox...

Term limits for Congress was another thing that Trump campaigned on. It was one of the questions in the crappy survey they sent out recently.

If Trump really pushed for this, it could be a lose-lose. Either it gets passed, and all the sitting Rs grow a spine. Or (more likely, I think), the entire Congress would freak out and try to get rid of him.

[litebright]

I think this could very quickly end up backfiring.

Washington, D.C., is a complicated place. Which NORMALLY puts great stock in norms, traditions, relationships, etc. Freshman congress people have a steep learning curve and if they didn't have to worry about being re-elected, it is entirely possible that they would be MORE gung-ho about not working with the other side, only taking extremist positions, ignoring their constituents, etc. You actually have an incentive to respect those norms & traditions that are part of the system of checks and balances. If you don't have to worry about living with the political consequences of your actions, why not burn shit down to get what you want?

I mean, there are a lot of people who think that one of the things that tipped the scales away from compromise in D.C. was the elimination of earmarks. Yes, pork generated a lot of wasteful spending, but it greased the wheels for both parties -- even if you weren't in power, you had an incentive to work with the other side and your district could still benefit even if the minority party had won there. Horsetrading seems to be distasteful to the average American and certainly has its downsides, but it did get shit done.

When you have long-term relationships with the other side because many of you have been around for a long time, those are often moderating influences. I also think that with having a fairly powerful presidency and lifetime SCOTUS noms, having a constant turnover of legislators and being unable to retain someone who is doing his/her job well is not in the best interest of the country. We are seeing with Trump the consequences of having someone in charge who has no clue about the legal ramifications or even constitutionality of his actions. I want strong, seasoned legislators who have incentive to respect the system, and that means giving them more than four years and being open to more than eight.

I also think that with how excruciating it is to run for office, you could get to the bottom of the barrel on candidates very quickly. Sure, possibly it could prompt new interest in public service if people thought they might actually have a chance because an incumbent couldn't run again -- but I'm am not very confident that that would actually happen, and it certainly wouldn't happen quickly.

I think there would be a ton of unintended consequences and it doesn't solve the worst problems.

ETA: I mean, look at the GOP now. They've got a majority plus the presidency and they don't give a fuck about anything but their own power -- EXCEPT, that they are already fretting about the political consequences of things like repealing the ACA, because they know voters will them accountable. Imagine how bad it would be if none of them were facing re-election. 

[cville]

Money is the big thing. A law to undo the effects of GODDAMNED Citizens United would go further to address ills blamed on long-serving congresspeople than would term limits.

[marshmallow]

Term limits are usually a Republican issue, so I'm not sure how it would help Democrats or other leftists to back it.

We have term limits in our state legislature (Nebraska) and I think it's been terrible for getting shit done and getting along. We have really talented people who can actually work across the aisle in our ostensibly non-partisan legislature sitting at home right now because they arbitrarily reached the limit some Republicans chose ten years ago.

And in NE, they were basically created to cut off the legislative career of the most progressive state senators (Ernie Chambers) and prevent career politicians who could understand and use the system to promote minority group values from gaining a voice (right now the NE senate is 49 people with 15 D and 1 independent) .

[heyjude]

Not a fan. Someone will retain institutional knowledge. Would you rather it be an elected official or lobbyists and staff? Pick your poison. But only one of these scenarios offers any sense of accountability.

They encourage dynasty politics. Family last names become huge.

I read somewhere that term limits actually hurt women and POC from gaining and maintaining footholds into an elected body.

And making policy is hard and requires forging relationships. By the time you figure it all out, it's time to leave so the next novice can take over.

If you want professional politics you need a professional body.

And plus. Every elected official is limited by the voters already.