Term Limits: Enough Is Enough

A libertarian friend, when asked about term limits, replied that if he had to make a choice he would opt against them, regardless of how many years one candidate had been in office. People should have the right, it was his opinion, to elect whomever they choose. It is a worthy sentiment, and was obviously the intent of the founders. But times were different. Public service, in the first years of the Republic, was seen as an avocation rather than a vocation. It was something one did after a successful career in some other field. People did not live as long in those days. Life expectancy in 1800 was about 40 years; though if one survived to 20 one could expect to live into their late 50s. Today, we live twenty years longer. Also, before the advent of the railroad, Washington was a difficult place to get to; thus serving in Congress often meant long absences from home.

Nevertheless, a precedent for term limits was established by George Washington when he decided, like Cincinnatus, to give up the Presidency after two terms and return to his farm at Mount Vernon. Keep in mind that Washington, as the nation’s first President, was acutely aware of the precedents he was setting.

Following FDR’s bid for a lifetime Presidency, the 22^nd Amendment was ratified in 1951, limiting any President to two elected terms. Forty states have term limits on governors, while fifteen states limit their state legislators. The fear of elected officials being in office too long is palpable among many. Yale classicist Donald Kagan, in a recent Wall Street Journal interview and quoting Thucydides, said, “…you can expect people whatever they may be to maximize their power.” That is certainly true of Congress today.

Democracy is fragile. It can easily be lost. In fact, there are those like Plato and Aristotle who believed that democracy inevitably leads to tyranny. Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress can bribe the public with the public’s money.”  If that is so, we are on a downward slope. With half the electorate no longer subject to federal income taxes and with entitlements consuming almost half the budget, we are in the midst of an enormous wealth transfer. In the Journal piece, Professor Kagan argued that the American will has been weakened by the concept that government will always be our backstop. While many of us believe that some level of entitlement spending is necessary in a compassionate society, it is a question of how much and who are the recipients. Whatever one’s opinion, there should be no doubt in the public’s mind that wealth transfer is underway and what its ultimate consequences may be. The transfer is aided and abetted by politicians who speak of duty and service, but in fact seek sustained personal power.

Democracy respects freedom as a value to be treasured, not as a right to be surrendered in return for the provision of more comforts. The inherent rights of individuals are recognized under democracy, which assumes that people are willing to take responsibility for their actions. Democracy implies self-reliance and a lack of dependency on government, yet the transfer of wealth infers greater dependency. Democracy depends upon the goodwill of the people, the willingness to live within the law, and it assumes leaders recognize that power is ephemeral and that it will be ceded to others when their term in office is up.

British historian and moralist, Lord Acton once wrote, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We see that in our country with the two-way street between K Street and Capital Hill. It is the increasing and demanding role of money in politics that is the handmaiden of cronyism. Running for national office requires vast amounts of money, thereby making officeholders beholden to benefactors. It has always been so, but it has become more pronounced. There are those who look at the spending and say we need campaign finance reform. We do, but imposing money limits on a nation represented by creative, but often slippery, lawyers will never work. Just look at McCain-Feingold. What we can do is demand more transparency. Sunshine is an effective disinfectant for money and politics. The Left blames Citizen United, but the better answer is to require that individual names be disclosed for any gift in excess of $1000 from individuals, partnerships, unions or corporations, no matter whether the gift goes to a candidate, Party or PAC. But, we can also limit the number of terms anyone may serve in Congress, thereby neutering the potential for corruption.

According to a recent MSNBC report, the cost of waging a successful Senatorial campaign in 2012 was $10.5 million, with newly elected Elizabeth Warren the queen of spenders, laying out $42.5 million! The cost of a House seat was $1.7 million. In 2008, the respective comparisons were $6.5 million and $1.1 million, reflecting increases far in excess of inflation. Regardless of the fact that more money is being spent on campaigns, incumbency has been increasing. According to a 2011 study by Congressional Research Service, the trend in average service tenures for both Senators and Representatives has been increasing since the end of World War II.

In the 104^th Congress (1995-1996), 14% of Senators had served more than 16 years. By the 111^th Congress (2009-2011) 18% had served more than 16 years.