Term limits is a tired political concept whose time has come and gone and come again, this time as part of California hedge fund billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer’s fringe presidential campaign.
Despite pouring tons of his own money into a barrage of national television commercials, Steyer’s poll numbers are still mired in low single digits among likely Democratic voters. Still, he has vowed to spend $100 million of his own money promoting his campaign.
People have been trying to implement term limits on members of Congress and in multiple state legislatures for decades. Republicans were the last to attempt it nationally during the “Contract with America” push during the early 1990s but the effort never got much traction.
The elections after the CWA push saw 23 states limit service in their state’s congressional delegation. But in 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned congressional term limits in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, ruling that state governments can’t limit the terms of members of Congress.
But here comes Steyer back to the well on the term limits issue – with his campaign telling Iowa voters earlier this year: “Federal term limits would put a cap on the number of years someone could hold elected office in the House of Representatives or the Senate. Currently, 15 states have term limits for state representatives. Also, as of the mid-20th century, we have presidential term limits, thanks to the 22nd Amendment, in which a president can only serve two elected four-year terms.
“Ask yourself why the president has term limits, but not Congress? From the beginning, Americans have been cautious of allowing unchecked power in our government, knowing that it circumvents the pillars of democracy. Term limits would be a check on power, a check on the oligarchy created by legislative dynasties, and would be a step in the right direction to getting our democracy to being by and for the people rather than by and for the dollars that fund re-election campaigns.”
State voters have consistently rejected term limits. In 1995 and again in 1999, Mississippi voters rejected two separate term limits initiatives each by a margin of about 55 percent to 45 percent. Why? Mississippi voters weren’t willing to give up their right to return competent, familiar public servants to office from their local supervisor and justice court judge to their congressman and U.S. senators. Some 15 states have enacted state legislative term limits, but Mississippi is not among them.
Steyer is also a proponent of eliminating the Electoral College, as are many national Democrats. But doing so would rob small, rural states like Mississippi of any significant influence on presidential politics and would further empower large states on the east coast and the west coast with large populations.
The problem with Steyer’s position, and those of other Democrats who likewise support reforms including term limits and elimination of the electoral college is that those positions empower large urban states like California to the detriment of smaller rural states like Mississippi. It plays directly into GOP strategies to retain their current base of power in the South and the Midwest.
As the 2020 Democratic primary has to date proven a circular firing squad in which 20 something candidates have been reduced to about 10, it’s clear that Trump is hoping for a Democratic nominee that is young, liberal and falls into line for term limits and against the electoral college – two issues that virtually guarantee that the South and the Midwest will vote to stick with President Trump.
Deep down, Democrats need the electoral college, too. Consider the analysis of Reagan administration general counsel Peter Wallison, who wrote: “In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, even though he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third-party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.”
Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com.
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Sid Salter: Dems Want Term Limits
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Every conservative I know wants term limits. If Dems want term limits and conservatives want term limits, then somebody is lying.
Term limits are sorely needed especially in the US Congress and state legislatures. I remember the comment Bert Case had the day Sonny Montgomery retired - "it is the end of an era." I seriously doubt that the drafters of the Constitution intended for a congressman's term to be so long that it could be classified as an "era". Every time a congressman or legislator gets re-elected two thing happens; (1) it becomes more an more difficult to defeat him in the next election; (2) their sense of "ownership" in the position increases. Why is our Federal and state government so large and so complex? Because there are people who have been in their elected positions for 20, 30 or more years. They have the time to make the system complex. Yes, we sorely need term limits in the US Congress and state legislatures.
We already have term limits. They are every six years for Senate, two years for Congress, and four years for state offices. Our electoral process imposes limits.
The problem with terms limits is that an organization loses " institutional knowledge".
You do want someone in the room who knows not just what the rules say, but why the rules were put into place.
Terms limits, without a long enough term to " learn the job" is like hiring a potentially talented accountants and then after they learn their job , firing the talented ones and the ones with poor work ethics and shortcomings en masse and then starting over.
We are the " term limits" . It's our willingness to be ill informed and persuaded by ads and social media and to get our information from unreliable sources that is the problem.
If you really believe understanding how to govern commerce and national security and international relations ( to name a very few) is learned in 2 years or 4 years, you are incredibly naïve.
The inability to sustain even a discussion of reasonable term limits on congress and state legislatures makes it abundantly clear who actually runs the government, and it ain't "We the People", It's "Them the Government". Who benefits from "career politics"?
9:20 - you are incredibly naive if you believe that the Federal and state governments are not overly complex and bloated. That condition was created by elected officials who make a life long carer out of their positions. And to the fellow who says we already have term limits through elections, I say he too is naive. Every time a person is re-elected the playing field is title a little more in his direction; it is not a fair race. Why do you think there is never a competent, electable candidate that runs against Benny Thompson. Because those that fit that description realize they have little chance of beating a incumbent total ingrained in the system.
Term limits for congress and state house. No term limits for senators. This solves a lot of problems. A mix of experienced and tenured leaders and "representative" of the people is sorely needed.
9:20 I would agree that for clerks, judges, and secretaries, and those type of really technical positions term limits might not be productive. But congressmen and legislators are "representative" positions and should not be the province of professional politicians whose first priority is maintaining their seats. Their staffs do most of the real work anyway.
It's our willingness to be ill informed and persuaded by ads and social media and to get our information from unreliable sources that is the problem.
AND our willingness to believe that bloviators, such as yourself, are legit purveyors of facts and truth.
I guess two dem(wits) does make it plural (dems).
Sid is full of poop like the Christmas goose.
The dem Congress-critters DO NOT WANT TERM LIMITS. It isn't "public" service, it is "self-service." Go in poor; come out a multi-millionaire.
Why should anybody in representative government have the possibility of a lifetime job? Are we that incompetent that no one else in the general population has the ability to represent thousands or even millions of people? Maybe we are just that stupid.
Where term limits are really needed is in the federal judiciary where judges are appointed for life. When the founding fathers set this up, folks average lifespan was about 55. Now we have some judges in their nineties making life altering rulings.
9:19, yes elections "could" serve in place of term limits IF the campaign finance system was fair and equitable. The truth of the matter is that incumbents have a tremendous advantage financially because every lobbying organization and every corporation that wants favor from the government donates to office holders. Its a form of legal bribery.
Look at the campaign finance forms for any county supervisor, legislator or congress member. It works the same at all levels, but the dollars get bigger. Why the heck would all the pharmaceutical companies be financing legislative races in little ole Mississippi? Why do ambulance companies and engineering firms donate to city and county candidates? How did Bennie accumulate millions of dollars for his war chest?
Its dirty. At every level. And ONLY term limits will make a dent in it.
People who want term limits are essentially saying that the voters need to be protected from themselves, that they're too stupid to be able to elect the right leaders. Nonsense. Ask Jeff Smith and Greg Snowden, and about a thousand others, if their incumbency guaranteed them reelection.
I used to believe the ballot box was the mechanism for term limits, but I underestimated the incumbents ability to corrupt and rig the system.
8:32, then you don't really know many conservatives. Or maybe more properly said, you don't really know any real conservatives.
As a staunch Republican conservative myself (and one that was in that position long before it became popular in this state as opposed to those that have recently jumped on the bandwagon because it fit their local demographics) I have to admit that early in my life (in the 70's when Democrats controlled everything from dog-catcher to US Senator) I felt that term limits might be the only way to get rid of some of the old codgers. But even recognizing that it would help get rid of those I didn't want, I recognized that it wouldn't mean their replacement by anything better.
I accept that the three folks you sit around and armchair quarterback everything from political opinions to play calling on Friday night might all agree with you on this question, but just like most statistical comments and opinions, that proves nothing about what "all conservatives want".
But thank you for your opinion. Now, what do you think about today's recruiting battles, since I'm sure you are an expert in that area as well.
11:13, incumbency doesn’t guarantee election, but you can’t deny it is a huge advantage. Do you think Cindy Hyde Smith would ever have been elected as a US Senator on her own? She is a horrible candidate like so many others who only have a job because of their party affiliation and connections. Clearly you are happy with the status quo, but I doubt you are a neutral observer here either.
11:33 Also please understand, if you can, that limiting the potential career of a politician also means that he can concentrate on representing the people and not prolonging his tenure and increasing his personal wealth. The people are not necessarily stupid, but they are lazy, and incumbent politicos take full advantage of it.
New blood will excite, Old blood will put you to sleep.
Clearly you are happy with the status quo, but I doubt you are a neutral observer here either.
Clearly you are unhappy with the status quo and I have no doubt that you are not a neutral observer.
I truly believe if our founding fathers could be brought back that this would be the first thing they would address.
Post a Comment