If there is one thing Americans of all political stripes agree on, it is they do not like Congress. At least, a clear majority of Americans claim to not like Congress.
According to one Gallup poll from October of 2016, only 18 percent of Americans approved of Congress just weeks before election day. However, when Nov. 8 came around, 97 percent of house members and 93 percent of senators seeking reelection won their race.
The fact such a large portion of Congress stays the same from election to election, despite low approval for the body, is due to a variety of factors; but most of it comes down to the myriad of advantages incumbency provides.
One idea which is frequently bandied about by political pundits as a way to improve Congress is to impose term limits on Congress members. This would be a horrible, undemocratic and likely ineffective solution to Congress’ abysmal approval numbers.
The idea is quite popular with voters. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey in 2016 found 74 percent of likely voters support limiting members of Congress to a set number of terms. In 2015, a Reuters Ipsos poll found 66 percent support term limits for Supreme Court Justices.
The first issue with this proposed “solution” is evident by the very existence of a “problem.” While Americans might dislike the United States Congress, they consistently send their own member of Congress back to Washington.
The reasons Americans reelect incumbents at such a high rate likely vary from one office and state to another, but maybe we should not be so surprised voters value experience.
Maybe, just maybe, a person who already holds a job is better qualified for the job than whoever happens to apply.
If someone applied to work for your business, but all the positions were full, it would typically make more sense to keep the staff the same instead of hiring a new worker and letting an existing employee go.
Obviously, there will be some exceptions. Sometimes an employee is exceptionally bad. Other times, an applicant may be exceptionally good. But those situations, both in this imaginary business and in American elections, are rare.
Other advocates for term limits will argue term limits lead to public servants being more willing to do what is best for the voters.
I not only doubt term limits would prevent corruption within the legislative branch, I believe it would cause more of it.
Many individuals begin jobs in government with the idea of staying in government for their entire life.
Many advocates for term limits view this a serious issue, but I have a hard time seeing how the biggest problem with Congress could be people who are so dedicated to the government they want to make it their lives’ work.
I believe a far larger issue than the number of people who become career politicians, is the number of politicians who become lobbyists.
As lobbyists, these ex-government employees end up making more money trying to convince their former colleagues whether or not to pass certain laws because of what their business wants. Now, this is a big problem—a bigger problem than some people thinking they can make the world a better place by continually working in government.
If congressional term limits were instituted, people who genuinely want to better the nation through public service will be discouraged from running or be forced out of office. Meanwhile, people who are hoping to make a profit by ultimately becoming lobbyists will not be discouraged at all. After all, the congressional job was never going to be anything but a temporary gig for them anyway.
Although the American public may be enraptured with the idea of congressional term limits as a way to improve Congress, limiting members of Congress to a set number of terms would only make the congressional problem worse.