In responding yesterday to President Obama’s push for health care reform, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell commented that “looking at the poll data, one could conclude that you would be history if you voted for this bill.” Spoken like a true career politician with over 25 years in the U.S. Senate.
Isn’t it time for term limits on Capitol Hill? Not to directly criticize McConnell’s comments, but isn’t this attitude (or arrogance) part of the problem? For many years they have touted the need for experience and continuity as their arguments against term limits, but isn’t that really just empty spin? It seems that McConnell considers this a career position that comes with a sense of entitlement if you put your priorities around maintaining that status.
Weighting of decisions based on one’s ability to survive politically seems to run in conflict with a commitment to public service. Surely years of campaigning and serving in office provides these senior statesmen with plenty of opportunities for employment in the private sector (or other jobs in the public sector if they so choose) following their distinguished, but albeit, shorter careers in Washington.
The idea of term limits, or rotation in office, dates back long before the foundation of America. As a result, when the continental congress appointed a committee of thirteen in 1776 to examine forms of government for the impending union of the United States, Thomas Jefferson promoted a limitation of tenure, “to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress….” As a result, the Articles of Confederation stated that “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years.”
In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, the federal constitution Convention at Philadelphia omitted mandatory term-limits from the Constitution. Nonetheless, due to broad support for the principle of rotation, rapid turnover in Congress prevailed. Also George Washington set the precedent for a two-term tradition at the presidency by refusing to run for a third term.
According to a February profile prepared by the Congressional Research Service, the average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 111th Congress was 11.0 years (5.5 terms); for Senators 12.9 years (2.2 terms). Representative John Dingell (D-MI) has the longest service of any House Member in history (54 years). In the Senate, Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), 92 years old, has served longer (51 years) than any other Senator in history. As a point of reference, the President at the time each began their career was Dwight Eisenhower.
At the beginning of the 111th Congress, the average age of Members was 58.2 years, with the average for Senators at 63.1 years. Keep in mind the average would exclude Joe Biden (67 years) who became vice-president in January 2009 and Ted Kennedy (77 years) who passed away in August 2009.
Traditionally, incumbents have improved odds in running re-election campaigns. Access to campaign cash, voter recognition, claims of accomplishments during previous terms, and established media recognition form the foundation of successful campaigns. The seniority system in Congress also adds to the appeal of re-electing an incumbent.
Over the years, many proposals have been put forward concerning term limits for Congress. In November 2009, Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would apply term limits to all members of Congress, limiting U.S. Representatives to three terms, or six years, and U.S. senators to two terms, or 12 years, of service. As Senator DeMint comments, “Some say only long-serving, seasoned elites have the skills to lead the people, but that’s exactly what we have today and how do you think it’s working for us?”
Changes to the Constitution would not come easy however. Any term limitation bill would require a two-thirds vote in each of the House and Senate along with approval by three-fourths of the States.
While unlikely to gain much traction, Senator DeMint’s observation highlights one of the root causes of the gridlock we have in our current system. As the saying goes, “Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way!” Unfortunately, it seems that the folks in Congress show little desire for any of these under their own initiative.
BA
