Congress has a low approval rating but if you think that term limits would fix this problem, then you’d better think again. According to termlimits(dot)com, 83% of Americans want term limits applied to the House and the Senate. Not only will such a move not help fix what people don’t like about Congress, it will make things worse. Here’s why.
Congress Represents Us, and We Hate Each Other
The real issue that people are angry about, is the inability of Congress to act unilaterally to implement the desires of the different constituencies. Each district wants it’s policies to dominate all the others but Congress is structured to keep one or a minority of districts from overruling all the others. There is no path to compromise that satisfies both sides because what they each want are diametrically opposed to each other. There can be no peace between Communists and Capitalists. Both sides will always rain on the other’s parade.
Congress represents the people, and the struggle in Congress to pull the country in any one direction successfully is a reflection of the fact that our Union consists of deeply opposed groups who are locked in an ideological war with each other. This war is played out in Congress and what people don’t like is that their side isn’t winning and that Congressional politics and rules keep one side from getting a winning advantage.
The real problem? We are at an ideological deadlock with ourselves as a people. We don’t have an issue with Congress; we have an issue with each other. Congress is simply a reflection of this conflict.
Separation, Domination, or Stagnation
One way to solve this problem would be for the two ideologies to separate from each other by region so that each could go their own way and pursue their own destiny unrestrained. Another way this could be solved is through domination where one side is able to suppress the other into powerlessness. Both of these solutions present problems. There is no easy way to regionally break apart the country into the different fragments which are often along rural vs urban lines. Second, the rules in Congress tend to prevent anything but a large majority from getting anything done. Both sides fear losing total control in future elections and since Congress has historically swung back and forth politically, neither side wants to set a precedent of unilateral subjugation lest they experience a reprisal in the future.
The other option is to continue as we are with neither side able to achieve it’s goals or efficiencies, and both sides causing each other inefficiencies. This is the choice of stagnation and it is our current path. We cannot become fully communist and we cannot become fully capitalist. We are stuck getting the worst of both sides without getting the full benefits of either. The end result? We all hate Congress; but really, we hate each other.
Enter: Term Limits
One way to NOT solve the problem, is put term limits on Congress. In lieu of actually solving the deadlock between the different constituencies or finding a working compromise between both sides (because there can’t really be one), the people have redirected their anger at the faces of the problem: the politicians who hold views opposing their own. Fundamentalists on one side hate the fundamentalists on the other side and vice versa. Moderates are hated on both sides for not going all in any direction. Instead of anger being directed at the majority constituency in a district with an opposing view, the representative elected by that majority constituency draws the ire. And so the solution everyone wants? Get rid of the face they don’t like. The proposal is to keep the constituents but rotate their champions.
It’s a Constituency Problem, not a Representative Problem
Some districts have very stable constituency compositions and so their political views stay the same over many decades without much or any variation (as opposed to some districts that could swing either way on a given election). When this happens, it is common for a specific representative or Senator to be elected over and over and over again. These multi-term faces of their districts become synonymous with the political view they represent and thus become regular targets of anger from their opposition (from any and all districts). In other words, when Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell held their offices for numerous decades, they did so because their constituencies sent them. Their constituencies are responsible for the continuous return of these characters to their seat every election cycle. Anger at Pelosi, McConnell, and Feinstein doesn’t change the fact that the political leanings of their districts are not changing. The problem is the voters, not their elected representatives.
In short, while term limits might change the faces of those who represent districts, it will not change the constituencies who elect them. The voters, forced to select a new face, will elect a new political representative who will peddle the same ideas from the previous officeholder. It will be the same political poop but a different political scoop.
Lobbyists and Bureaucrats Will Reign Supreme
Fact: lobbyists give money to Congress critters and Congress critters vote the way lobbyists want them to vote. DC living is expensive, elections are costly, seats on committees are a very pricey commodity, and all of these things cost money. Lobbyists have money and lots of it. People may balk at how much a Congress critter gets paid ($174,000) in comparison to the economies of the districts from which they run, but those salaries are but fractions of pennies in a nation that has a GDP of over $27 trillion and a Congress that has an annual budget of about $4 trillion.
Lobbyists have a vested interest in swaying Congress and they pay more than the constituents do in order to earn that sway. Since lobbyists have so much power, the real question is, does Congress have the independence to resist pressure from the lobbyists? When Congress critters become stable in their elections at home, and are experienced in congressional matters/policies/rules/procedures, they become much more influential and capable of handling lobbyist pressure. These tenured Congress critters have a long game and can balance the competing forces trying to leverage them to accomplish long term goals.
The only thing that offsets lobbyist power, is the need to get reelected. If Congress critters only did what lobbyists told them to do, they’d lose their jobs. They need to please the voters back home or they aren’t coming back to work in the next cycle. This means that, although lobbyists hold disproportionate power, this power if offset by constituent demands. The result is that Congress critters must balance voter approval against lobbyist pressure. When you implement term limits, you neuter voter influence and the balance swings wildly in favor of the lobbyist.
When you implement term limits, all Congress critters become novices. Never again will there be any seasoned, tenured, or experienced Congress critters. They will not worry nearly as much about reelections as they will about the good opinion of their future bosses once they leave Congress. The only ones in DC who have will have tenure, a long term plan, and any experience in national government will be the lobbyists and bureaucrats. Term limits will reduce all future Congress critters to nothing more than butts-in-seats. The real planners and strategists will be a shadow government of unelected lobbyists and bureaucrats who do not have term limits.
End Lobbyist Power Over Congress?
You want to end lobbyist power over Congress? Well, you’ll have to take away Congress’ power to spend money and tax people. As long as Congress has power to spend money and levy taxes, Americans (corporations, private citizens, et al) will have motivation to lobby them for influence. If you take away Congress’ power to spend money and levy taxes, those powers will have to go somewhere else. And then the lobbyists will follow the money to whomever holds the power of taxation and the government purse. You will never rid the world of lobbyists so long as there is a government with money to be spent. Term limits will not change this fundamental fact.
Why Would the People Censure Themselves?
The end result of term limits will be that the people are not capable of building a good, competent, and experienced Congress. The people’s voices will always be temporary with no long-term vision. Lame duck Senators and Representatives will have no reason to please anyone but the lobbyists and special interest groups. They will get told what policies to pick when they arrive in Congress and they will vote as they are told. When they are done, they will move on to corporate boards, non-government organizations, lobbyist roles, and other types of jobs as rewards for their political support during their lame duck terms. The people will get more frustrated as they watch their Congress critters become less and less accountable to them (more than they already are even now).
The people, by implementing term-limits, are deliberately dis-empowering themselves and making sure that their voice will always be the least important in DC politics. And why? Because they are tired of seeing the same faces of people they hate. Instead of dealing with the constituencies that elected those faces, they’d settle for term limits to change those faces even if it it means making the people’s representation truly irrelevant to national politics.
In short, 83% of Americans would censure themselves just so they don’t have to look at the same ugly mug for more than 9 or 12 years. Someday, if term limits become law, people will have EXACTLY the same complaints about Congress that they have now only the situation will be even worse and more hopeless. An “I told you so” will hardly be a worthy compensation for watching people realize that their voice has been permanently sidelined and by their own hand.