Term Limits: A Good Idea?

According to a public opinion poll taken last year, Congress is less popular than cockroaches, traffic jams, and root canals. In fairness, it is not unusual for Americans to be dissatisfied with congressional performance, but popularity levels of Congress are at their lowest in recent American history. A Gallup opinion poll reports that currently congressional approval rests at just about 15%, well below the historical average of 33% since Gallup began polling in 1974. Across the country, Americans are crying for congressional reform.

A popular grassroots movement to reform Congress advocates the imposition of term limits on federal lawmakers. In the current American political system, term limits in the House and Senate do not exist. A legislator can be voted into office and, granted that they survive elections every few years, they could stay in office for life. Most supporters of a term limits reform hope to limit legislators to about 12 years in their office–which translates to two terms in the Senate and six terms in the House. (Of course, a Representative that serves six-terms could also have the opportunity to run for the Senate for an additional two.)

According to a Gallup poll taken last year, nearly 75% of American adults favor instituting term limits, with 21% against. The same poll indicates that this reform measure has support across both party lines and across all age groups. It’s a popular reform proposal, but is it a good one?

Supporters claim that this type of reform is directed towards “career politicians,” who they claim pursue office for their own interests rather than on behalf of their constituents. From this point of view, “career politicians” are more concerned about re-election, not legislation, and are beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists, rather than to their vocation as a representative to their home district. In effect, these Americans view incumbents and long-serving senators and representatives as “what’s wrong with Washington.”

Ultimately, the main goal behind the term limits movement is to reform and perfect representation. Term limits seem like a good way to get the “bad” politicians out who might otherwise be kept in place by political machinery and the nearly insuperable advantage of incumbency. Supporters of a term limits reform, like conservative Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist George Will, claim that instituting term limits will change the motivations that politician have in running for office. Imposing term limits would purportedly turn Congress into a “rotating citizen body.” The added effect of a “rotating citizen body” would be that it would be a pool of new ideas and new approaches to the issues, with less corruption.

One can see the appeal of a “citizen body” in Congress–the kind idealized by Frank Capra’s movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It is reasonable for voters to be more comfortable if “someone like me” were elected into office. However, in contrast to these claims, one could pose the following question: is lack of experience now a job qualification?

Like any other job, elected legislators are subject to a learning curve, which takes time to establish. Among the key things that newcomers learn in Congress in their first year is the organization and structure of Congress. To clarify, this does not refer to procedure but to the expected norms of Congress as a social institution.

Indeed, Congress, like all governmental structures, is a social body. There are certain norms that legislators are expected to adhere to. In the American system, this includes apprenticeship of junior members to senior members, restrained partisanship, institutional (read: House or Senate) loyalty, individual specialization in key policy fields, and reciprocity between members. Put together, these norms create something we could call “institutional memory”–a collective set of guidelines and know-how within the institution. Newcomers to Congress do not have this information-set going into office, it’s something that they have to learn on the job. In turn, these norms ultimately produce better legislation by the mere fact that they produce better legislators.

The effect of term limits on institutional memory would be largely negative. Think about it: no sooner would a legislator learn the ropes around Congress or experience major pieces of legislation with senior members or begin to specialize in a policy field before they would be turned out of office not by voters, but by a ticking clock. Sure, there are many remarkably talented people that can serve in Congress, but there is a benefit to re-electing members that are already familiar with the information-set to do their jobs well. Rapid turnover in Congress–a rotating “body of citizens”–would decrease the power of institutional memory and would be akin to trying to build a legislative institution on shifting sand.

Although not perfectly analogous, the recent influx of legislative newcomers (who–largely–campaigned against so-called “career politicians”) in the current Congress has provided a glimpse into what a future with term limits might look like. The current Congress has been marked by new members (such as Ted Cruz [R-TX] of government-shutdown fame) who actively have resisted following the historic norms set before them. The result has been, frankly, creating a toxic atmosphere on the Hill that makes legislative work unrewarding and has driven many members–often those used to working across the aisle–away.

In response to senators like Cruz and others who have disrupted congressional norms, many senior members of what has been dubbed as the “problem-solving caucus” have decided to not seek re-election. As former senator and famed bipartisan Olympia Snowe (R-ME) penned in an editorial in the Washington Post, “the Founding Fathers intended the Senate to serve as an institutional check that ensures all voices are heard and considered…Yet more than 200 years later, the greatest deliberative body in history is not living up to its billing. The Senate of today routinely jettisons regular order.” After three terms in office, and despite being a key compromiser and legislative-veteran, Snowe has decided to retire.

Other senior legislatures agreed with Snowe. For example, in a statement to the Detroit News, Representative John Dingell (D-MI) said, “I find serving in the House to be obnoxious….This is not the Congress I know and love. It’s hard for me to accept, but it’s time to cash in.”

To conclude, “the establishment” isn’t the problem–it’s actually one of the greatest strengths of Congress. Imposing term limits on Congress would not just be an ineffectual reform, it would only make things worse.