RSS Feed MenuConsider the new congressman from Peoria. Aaron Schock moved up from the Peoria school board, to head of the board, to Illinois state representative, to Congressman (and minor Youtube sensation).
He’s 27 years old. He started with the school board at the age of 19.
That’s a pretty good story, I think. We’re in a culture where we move quickly from one thing to the next, sometimes sideways, and sometimes upwards.
And yet, that is not our political culture when it comes to our legislatures. Maybe it should be, to a greater extent, in some cases.
I’m not a staunch advocate of mandatory term limits, mind you. I’ve lived most of my life in Virginia, and the 1-term limit on the governor is dumb, dumb, dumb. My sister in Michigan always complains about the term limits on their state legislature, which in her view does little but encourage an anti-political amateurism that ironically reinforces the status quo. If I was alive at the time, I would have probably opposed the 22nd Amendment because hey, there might be another big war someday, and it would be nice to not have to break in a new president for it. You never know.
Voluntary term limit pledges are great, though. I think they might make a difference in some districts. Here’s why:
1. A temporary commitment to a new congressman is easier to make than a permanent one. In an environment where such a high percentage of incumbents are reelected, people know the deal. They know that if they make a change, they may be stuck with that change for a long time. To say, as a politician, that you’re not going to be there forever, may make the switch easier.
2. Resources can be devoted to new opportunities instead of old commitments. If we win back a new majority in Congress, it would be nice if it doesn’t atrophy to nothing over 12 years. The only way to do that is to pick new battles with vulnerable Democratic incumbents, and devote time and energy to holding what we have. The grassroots impression was that the Republican majority cared disproportionately about the latter, and they had a point. Not a single Democratic incumbent lost in 2006, after all. No, I’d rather see a more dynamic party that goes after every race, and we can’t always do that when every incumbent leans on the head of the RCCC for the resources to get through just one more tough race.
3. It would be nice to have a little more variety in our conservative stars’ careers. I’m something of a Washingtonian, so I’m not one to put much stock in the idea of the humble citizen politician doing his work for the commonweal for a brief time and then shaking the dust of D.C. off his feet and returning to the plow. We have a big, complicated government, and if someone knows a thing or two about how it works, then they should stick around. I see the fate of the limited-out politician as the rubber-chicken circuit, some think tank work, a bit of lobbying, a run at another office, or even a run at the same office if your chosen successor doesn’t happen to win. There are some talented and decent Congressmen still in office that decided not to keep their 1994-era term-limits pledges. They’ve proven they can keep winning, which is fine. But what else can they do?
All that being said, if I were U.S. Term Limits, here’s what I’d do. For the 2010 midterms I’d be looking for Republican House challengers in semi-long-shot districts facing slightly banged-up incumbents. I’d be having some serious conversations with them about their expectations and goals, and I’d hope for maybe a dozen term-limits pledges. Then I’d see how it works for them, how the pledge resonates with the people they talk to and the votes they get. If it works, then I’d start working on the Senate races while making sure that my winners are grooming decent successors. If it doesn’t work, then at least I’d be doing something besides beating up on turncoats.
Republicans have a lot to relearn. Perhaps “nobody is indispensable” would be a good lesson to teach ourselves. But let’s teach the Democratic incumbents first.
Photo courtesy of Schock for Congress.
fact based // Feb 18, 2009 at 12:14 pm
As George Will pointed out many years ago: we have term limits they’re called votes at the ballot box. Anyone with anytime spent in CA would see the insanity of term limits with politicians simply playing musical chairs and then trying to learn their new jobs before they are termed out.
If you want to limit the power of incumbents push for strict campaign spending limits and publicly funded campaigns.
That said it is clear that 2 yr terms for the house are totally dysfunctional . This is seen mostly clearly in your House Repubs who are totally captive to the party base in mortal fear of offending Rush and facing a primary contest in their safe repub districts. Hence they make no effort to look at the long term national interest, 4 yr terms would alleviate this a bit,
Finally get out of the bubble. You write:” We have a big, complicated government, and if someone knows a thing or two about how it works, then they should stick around. I see the fate of the limited-out politician as the rubber-chicken circuit, some think tank work, a bit of lobbying, a run at another office, or even a run at the same office if your chosen successor doesn’t happen to win”, Hmm how avout this radical idea after 10 or more years representing a district actually RETURNING to that district to work there in business, govt, or the not for profit sector bringing their expertise back to the people they represented. Instead they all (repub and dem) jpin the iron triangle with folk like you.
ireign // Feb 18, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Voluntarily term limits tend not to work because many incumbents break them (see house class of 1994) and it makes you a lame duck and gives you less leverage over other elected members towards end of your career. It also seems that many that make the pledge are looking for a higher office and may do things that residents of their district won’t like to make them more electable statewide.
What Republicans should do is not fund vulnerable incumbents in solid red districts. One would hope that a more effective Congressman would be better able to hold on to that seat and thus, someone who is having trouble may be worth losing so we can replace them in the next election cycle with someone else.
HollywoodBill // Feb 18, 2009 at 1:03 pm
factbased sure is on the money about term limits in CA. It is a colossal failure and all the politicians do is play musical chairs and switch from State Assemlyman to State Senator and vice versa. And long term problems aren’t always so easily handled within a time frame. Term limits is one of those simplistic solutions that sounds great in theory but doesn’t really work because life gets in the way.
dendup // Feb 18, 2009 at 2:50 pm
As fact based pointed out, all this has been pointed out a long time ago. So why does the GOP still bring it up at all? I think the Reagan thought (?) gov’t isn’t the solution to our problems gov’t is the problem encapulates a basic hostility to all gov’t -not just big gov’t – by the far right. If Reps want to respond to people’s needs, they need to accpet the basic legitamacy of gov’t in order to even conceptualize useful solutions by gov’t. If the Invisible Hand was enough, the waves of reform tha periodically (like now) wash over capitalism would barely be ripples because they would be unnecessary.
joemarier // Feb 19, 2009 at 5:22 am
Thanks for the comments, all. I wanted to comment on some of your thoughts earlier, but I couldn’t. But, I’ll respond to your best points. First of all, returning to the state after the term is up is good too, but slightly overrated in my view. George Will’s point is valid, but I’m trying to counteract the incumbency-promoting effects of campaign fundraising limits and gerrymandering, both of which I don’t think are going away any time soon. The point about the CA state legislature is valid as well, which is why I don’t like mandatory term limits. I still think there’s a place for term limit pledges in limited cases, though.