Term in Office, Research Paper Example

There are generally accepted simple truths in life that are simplified in sayings so common its originator is often forgotten. To paraphrase Lord Acton Tenure corrupts; absolute tenure corrupts absolutely. This does not necessarily mean that every politician who has held a post for a long time automatically is corrupted. The other side of this there is individuals who come along that the electorate simply just love and will be voted in time and time again. For the last two hundred years, reelection of members of congress has been very high. Recently as career, politicians have hit the scene the reelection of members of congress has hit over 90% in some states. (Hertzberg, p. 2.)This said Polls have consistently indicated across almost all demographic groups and political affiliation. Those voters consistently prefer term limits. More than 21 states have voted on the issue preferring term limits. (Frenzel, p. 29.)There are two sides to every discourse. This paper seeks to explore them in a balanced manner. It will begin with arguments against and arguments for and my own analysis and interpretation of this issue that has been made a major political question for some time now.

The real politics of term limits lies in who opposes it. Incumbent politicians and the special interest groups are the most fervent opposition to term limits. There opposition and rhetoric is very emotional very heated and sometimes irrational. The chair of the House Administration Subcommittee in 1994 compared it to Nazism. (Frenzel, p. 90.)This shows how threatened they are by term limits. Their arguments are very interesting.

It is argued that term limits already exist in the democratic process. The fact that every two years congressional representatives and women have to go back to their electorate to get another mandate is itself a term limit. The turnover of legislature is higher than is perceived. Fewer than 1 in 10 members stay for more than ten years in office.

Term limits are actually assumed to be a good thing by default. There is overwhelming evidence for its grass roots support. However, there is no reliable statistical proof that shows it makes government work better. This brings up the question whose initiative is this. Who has been footing the bill? People do not suddenly start clamoring for anything automatically unless it affects their ability to put bread on the table. As seen by the occupy movements around the world. In order for an issue to be put on the ballot box, it takes organization.

This involves a sensitization campaign with various forms of advertising. The money has not come from citizenry frustrated with government. The truth is that the money comes from a few wealthy individuals in Washington and elsewhere pushing their own agenda. The truth is that they are not many entrenched irremovable incumbents. There are just too many entrenched democrats. This points a conservative agenda being pushed by republican neo-cons. Those who are in congress who support term limits are in fact republicans. In 1994 out of 45 clamoring for the introduction of term limits 42 were republicans. (Frenzel, p. 72.) That should not come as a surprise. Therefore, the punch line here is that the republicans are trying to entrench into law what they have failed to do at the ballot box. Thus undermining democracy, and the very foundation and aspirations of our founding fathers wishes and objectives.

Term limits are a response to the overwhelming anger felt by the citizenry. The state of affairs is worrying most Americans. There is a large deficit to deal with. There is also high unemployment. A biting recession that is making all Americans suffers in one way or another. It would make sense to reform congress as opposed to introducing a system that has no real proof of making things better.

Reform campaign finance is the real culprit to this problem. In Michigan for example opposed to term limits, are the biggest financial contributors to candidates. It is not surprising that contributors belonged to some of the most regulated companies in America. Some of the companies were Chrysler Corporation, Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Michigan, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Southern California Edison Company, The Coastal Corporation, Kellogg Company, and Pacific Telesis Group (Leahy, p56) these corporations do not want to lose a friend they have heavily invested in.

There is also the problem of loss of experience in constantly replacing politicians. It takes time for a new person to find their way around. This means that the electorate will not be served as well because the learning curve is large. Furthermore smaller states and thus with fewer representatives use seniority, and the respect it garners as well as the power to their advantage. Larger states have huge number of representatives therefore; they will have their members in important committees. Their decisions could easily affect the lives of tens of thousands of Americans in smaller states without even having a say in it. That is exactly what would happen with term limits.

Term limits would demote seniority for it does not mean expertise. One can be important committees not because they are experts in the business that particular committee deals with but because they have garnered so much power they can maneuver themselves into such positions. There name recognition gets them reelected as well as all the money they get from lobbies and special interests. The argument that term limits would rob congress of experienced legislators has to face a simple point.

The point made by Hendrik Hertzberg that while depriving Congress of priceless lawmaking capacity “would be a real cost… it would be a cost worth paying to be rid of the much larger number of timeservers who have learned nothing from longevity in office except cynicism, complacency, and a sense of diminished possibilities.” (Hertzberg, p. 23.)

This also brings into question the whole process. If a well-informed individual finds difficulty in maneuvering due procedural complexities then it raises questions about America’s representative democracy being elitist and exclusionary. This also follows that new legislators would bring in fresh ideas of how to tackle problems.

Campaign finance reform argument is easily defeated by the simple fact it is being written by incumbents for incumbents to help incumbents. Former Congressman Bill Frenzel noted, “No legislature has ever passed a campaign law that made it harder for incumbents to get reelected.” (Frenzel, p. 62.)

In my opinion, the changes that term limits would bring would be sweeping. The arguments against term limits are either uninformed or irrelevant. For instance, the argument that small states would suffer is incorrect. It would remove seniority and introduce meritocracy and decisions made will be about expertise not interests of politics. Term limits would create fundamental changes to the system that has become so bogged down by procedure that very little is getting done. They are too busy playing with procedure so as to block changes to law. An example of this was during the health care debate. It was not about the people but defeating the democrats.

Work Cited:

Bill Frenzel, “Term Limits and the Immortal Congress,” Brookings Review, Spring 1992, p. 22

Hendrik Hertzberg, “Twelve Is Enough,” New Republic, May 14, 1990.

Norman Leahy, “Corporate Interests: Why Big Business Hates Term Limits,” U.S. Term Limits Foundation, Term Limits Outlook Series, Vol II, No. 1 (March 1993)

John C. Armor, “‘Foreshadowing’ Effects of Term Limits: California’s Example for Congress,” U.S. Term Limits Foundation, Term Limits Outlook Series, Vol III, No. 1 (June 1994).