I've been thinking a lot lately about term limits. One common objection I've heard in the past goes something like this: "If we have term limits, we will end up with inexperienced legislators who can't get anything done."
Recent events have led me to conclude: "How much worse could it be??"
Since there's been some discussion around here about Larry Sabato's call for a Constitutional Convention, I thought I would throw out some thoughts on term limits, and why I believe they are an important piece of our efforts to restore our democracy.
More below the fold....
Another objection to term limits is that they are fundamentally undemocratic; that is, that they deprive voters of their right to choose the officeholder they wish to choose.
A side note: as one who has studied a lot of ancient history and literature, I have to mention that our modern conception of the term "democracy" differs in many ways from the idea which began in ancient Athens.
To the Athenian democrats, in fact, the very idea of elections was undemocratic, because elections would tend to favor the rich (who could buy votes or popularity). What a silly idea. Anyway, their solution was to have most offices chosen by lot from interested citizens. Just as a thought experiment, imagine what our Congress would look like if its membership were chosen by lot (i.e., randomly) from eligible and willing citizens. We would certainly have a Congress that "looked like America," for one thing. As to whether it would do any worse than our current legislature, I think it's hard to say.
But I'm not suggesting that we choose our House of Representatives by lot, though I think it's an interesting idea philosophically. What I am suggesting is that we ensure enough turnover to combat the rise of a professional political class, which I think is a significant source of our problems.
So let's say, for the sake of argument, we set a term limit of 6 years for Representatives and 12 for Senators. What would happen?
We would certainly lose some great elected officials. But I believe that, if combined with public financing of elections (another essential component of reclaiming our democracy), the body politic would emerge healthier.
To use one example I have heard: "We'd have to get rid of Ted Kennedy (or substitute your favorite progressive longtime member)." Yes, but do you really believe that Massachusetts has failed to produce a potential Senator at least as good as Kennedy in the past 45 years? I mean, it's likely that some good Massachusetts Democrats have DIED waiting for Ted Kennedy to vacate that seat....
I think the potential benefit of term limits-- more new blood, fewer officials corrupted by too much time in Washington, more citizen legislators-- far outweigh the costs-- less experienced legislators, some good legislators turned out of office.
Further, I think this is an issue that Americans of all political stripes can embrace. If Democrats make it one of their signature issues, it will draw support from independents and even Republicans. Of course it's an issue that will have to be pushed from the grassroots up, since every incumbent has an interest in being against it.
Those are my thoughts. What are yours?