Making the Term Limits Case

I've made this argument to a couple of different people in person, but here it goes:

Term limits in this country are backward.

What do I mean?

- The presidency should not be term-limited.
- The Congress (specifically the House) should be term-limited.

I'm making two separate arguments here. I'll take them on individually:

The 22nd amendment was the product of spiteful Republicans of what Harry Truman deemed the "do-nothing 80th Congress." Those Republicans were angered by FDR's successes and the fact that FDR served as president for four terms. They sought to enshrine the precedent established by George Washington in the constitution.

This is all well and good, but I think there are a few points that make this irrelevant. First of all, non-term limited executives (on all political sides) across the world run into a degree of voter fatigue. Tony Blair (UK) and John Howard (Australia) faced this challenge: both were enormously competent, effective leaders of their countries. Both ran into voter fatigue after about 10-12 years at the helm of their nation. In essence, they are organically term-limited by an alert public opinion. The executive is at the very center of government in modern democratic states. Public opinion functions as a check on lifelong terms for executives. There is simply no way George Bush could have won a third term in 2008.

Second, precedent is powerful, and it generally was upheld, pre-FDR. Teddy Roosevelt was the only president to seek the presidency for a third term, and he did this only after stepping down. One could easily argue that TR ran in 1912 out of spite; he thought that Taft betrayed him. (Taft, for his part, was greatly offended by this.) Throughout history, presidents have tended to respect Gen. Washington's judgment.

Moreover, does anyone think the US would have been better off if FDR hadn't sought a third term in 1940? Would Wendell Wilkie, Henry Wallace, or John Nance Gardner have done a better job as president? I doubt it. The public opinion of the US knew that FDR had the right policies and the right experience to deal with the coming international turmoil. And they were certainly right.

Third, being president is tiring, hard work. The modern presidency is a difficult, draining job. I struggle to imagine very many candidates who will be vigorous enough to pursue a fourth term, and popular enough to build the support required for one. If there is such a person out there, I'm not certain that it's a good idea to prevent him from running for a fourth term.

Finally, the "lame-duck issue" is serious. President Bush became a lame duck by late 2005. This was caused, I think, by the comical reaction of Bush and his Congressional allies to the Terri Schiavo situation, and, more critically, by the federal government's stunning display of ineptitude in the face of Hurricane Katrina. If that had been John Kerry's administration with a similar pair of disasters, would he have been marginalized into irrelevancy by the media and voting public. Of course not. Mr. Kerry would only be irrelevant if he had decided not to seek a second term.

Though the powers of the presidency are too extensive, in my opinion, "lame ducks" aren't good for anyone. Undoubtedly, the never-ending campaign of 2008 had something to do with Bush's lame duck status. Presidential candidates were acting the part of president for a full year, even in the incumbent party.

I think that term limiting the president shows a hearty lack of faith in voters, one that I think is not welcome in the case of the presidency.

A lack of faith in voters when it comes to the Congress, however, is quite reasonable, considering their abysmal track record. Since the 1970s, Congressional approval ratings have topped 40% only between 1998 and 2004. Omitting the post-9/11 spike and a less dramatic pre-Iraq War spike, the US Congress never manages to top 50% approval rating.

I strongly believe that these perennially-low approval ratings are more a product of the general public's poor understanding of Congress than anything else--namely, Congress is programmed to fail at most things, most of the time; a desire for slow change was built into the structure, leading to consistent disappointment from voters who do not understand that the system was designed for slow change. Fueled by an under-informed and irresponsible media, this classic misunderstanding leads to consistent disappointment.

But disappointment would be addressed by, you know, voting for new members, you think? At least a little bit?

No. Incumbency protection is as strong as ever, and it has gotten stronger over the past century. Here's a graph to demonstrate this, courtesy of Thirty-Thousand.org:

incumbency

In 2008, the Congress' approval ratings hovered in the teens. The incumbent protection rate: 95.9%. Undoubtedly, part of this is the product of gerrymandering. But Congress' track record is abysmal, and the Founders never wanted career legislators. I think that states should follow the Iowan model of redistricting (I hate Iowa for its ethanol subsidies, but its sadly idealistic, mushy-middle approach actually makes sense, in this case). I also think that the House should be term-limited.

So, my nascent, idealistic plan: I'd write a constitutional amendment to limit members of Congress to four consecutive terms, with a waiver given to members of the House leadership: the Speaker, the Majority and Minority leaders, and the Majority and Minority Whips. Indeed, the waiver would make those positions both more desirable and more competitive--if someone lost an intra-Congressional election for the leadership position and had passed their term limit, they would have to resign their seat.

I would also run a strong, grassroots, state-by-state campaign to demand a less partisan process for redistricting. I would not pursue this legally; I would pursue this politically.

Simultaneously, I would announce the immediate repeal of the 22nd amendment: a bad idea whose time never was.