If you ask any pollster, they will tell you Donald Trump faces an uphill battle to winning the White House on Nov. 8. While his rhetoric clearly resonates strongly among his loyal support base, he’s done little during this downward spiral to extend his appeal to undecided voters and begrudging Hillary Clinton supporters.
Considering this, many were floored to hear Trump outline plans for his first 100 days in office during a speech in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. At the center of these plans was perhaps Trump’s most reasonable idea yet: imposing congressional term limits in the name of uprooting career politicians and vanquishing corruption in Washington.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue, most would agree this stance could be capable of winning over a certain contingent of disillusioned anti-establishment voters.
Corruption in Washington is an issue that must be tackled. Imposing term limits sounds like a logical antidote, but it’s very possible they would leave government more infected than before.
Proponents of term limits argue that allowing congressmen and women to serve indefinitely encourages complacency, self-dealing and cozy relations with corporate lobbies. However, there’s a reason we have a democratic government: for senators and representatives, we are given an opportunity every six and two years, respectively, to assess a candidate’s merit and vote.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wouldn’t have been re-elected 29 times if he didn’t have a close and genuine relationship with his constituents. Some who serve in congress simply possess superior skill, and removing these individuals is a disservice to Americans.
Additionally, a perpetual cycle of green, inexperienced congressmen doesn’t eliminate the influence of lobbyists, it intensifies it.
Like any job, legislation has a learning curve. It takes a number of years to learn how to effectively and efficiently accomplish things in congress. Effective lobbyists look for congressmen that can be easily bought and influenced, not usually seasoned ones who are comfortable with their craft. These greener legislators then become more likely to lean on the assistance and influence of lobbyists, who would then hold much more power in the political process.
Incoming candidates would also have less experience to be used as criteria for judging their merit. Without a reasonable list of accomplishments, how can we knowledgeably determine whether or not a candidate is suitable for elected office?
As politics has grown more ideological in recent years, bipartisanship has become more imperative. With a rotating body of legislators, a finite window of service makes it more difficult to form pacts and relationships with fellow congressmen. If individuals are allowed a maximum of two or three terms, the incentive to act pragmatically to accomplish things is reduced. It makes more sense to burn brightly and briefly and push one’s agenda as aggressively as possible.
When put into practice, these ill effects can be seen. In the 1990s, California instituted term limits for its state senators and assemblymen. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, state legislators make 50 percent fewer changes to the budget compared to before this measure was passed. Whether it be for a lack of experience or a lack of incentive, term-limited politicians simply aren’t as productive.
Trump’s rhetoric echoes the beliefs of many discontented Americans. Stymieing corruption is necessary, but term limits would not have the desired effect. Instead, we should focus on implementing measures that directly check the influence of lobbyists and special interests, not contribute to them.
