Redstate

By Uma Richie Posted in Congress — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Last week Peggy Noonan painted a dreary picture of Republican prospects in November. I agree that we have our work cut out for us; however, given that Congress has an 18 percent approval rating with five months until the election, it would be wrong to declare that all is lost.

Several recent RedState diaries proposed new versions of the 1994 Contract with America. Similarly, Newt Gingrich has developed a Platform of the American People. I wholeheartedly support these efforts, but believe they will bear no fruit without a provision for term limits such as the following (House version):

“In 1994 Republicans running for Congress signed a Contract with America that was intended to clean up the way business is conducted on Capitol Hill. Part of that contract was to vote on term limits for federal legislators. As promised, the term limits proposal came to a vote in 1995 but failed to garner the two-thirds super majority needed for a Constitutional amendment. In the 13 years since, we found with many regrets that corruption knows no party. Certain members of the Republican caucus have disgraced this institution, and we vow to do what is in our power to restore your confidence in us. That is why we pledge, if elected, to serve no more than four consecutive terms (open seats, first and second term incumbents) or two more terms (all others).”

Read more...

Short term risks

In the short run, a term limits pledge might be suicidal. Republicans could still suffer great losses, while guaranteeing that all seats currently held by the GOP would be open in the next eight years; nonetheless, Republicans must show leadership by example and take this immense risk if they expect voters to take an even bigger leap of faith and elect them. (It would be wise to shame the Democrats into making the same pledge to ensure that the districts they carry will also open up again in the same timeframe.)

Long term gains

In the long run, I think a term limits pledge would be healthy for our party. Our greatest disadvantage vis-a-vis the Democrats is that in our contempt for oversize government, Republicans are not eager to run for any official position. Democrats, who recognize the government as the surest means to solve problems, see no incongruity between their beliefs and a political career. Naturally, the ones with the most impressive resumes gravitate to elective office.

Across the aisle, the finest minds in the Party of Lincoln are hard at work, flying the space shuttle, hunting for terrorists, home schooling seven children, running a business, performing trauma surgery, etc. (A profound sense of humility on behalf of us all prevents me from adding “blogging for RedState” to this list.) Given the state of affairs in Congress, many correctly feel that they can better serve America in their current jobs.

If we demand behavior above reproach from our leaders and limit the time they serve, standing a watch in Congress would come to be seen as a noble civic duty once again. Recruiting a cadre of qualified Republican candidates to be citizen legislators for a finite period would yield better results for the party and the country than our current system of nominating masochists who biennially are willing to beg and plead to keep their jobs in a dysfunctional organization. It would amount to a pause in a successful profession rather a career unto itself.

Arguments against term limits

Some argue against term limits because voters prefer to reelect incumbents who will gain seniority so that pork barrel funds will flow back into the home district. On the contrary, I believe Americans have experienced enough of the drawbacks of wasteful spending to be bribed with their own tax dollars anymore. First, in many districts, the bacon brought home benefits nowhere near the majority of constituents. Second, some projects such as prisons have unintended social and economic costs that are borne by the local taxpayers. Third, propping up a certain faltering industry only delays the inevitable and allows local leaders to absolve themselves of their responsibility to attract new businesses.

Others point out that term limits prevent experience from accumulating in Congress. I am willing to sacrifice expertise to reduce the personal aggrandizement that in too many cases has led to corruption; however, to concede that point, I would allow an eight year incumbent to run again after taking a one term break from office.

A final point made by opponents of term limits is that entrenched lobbyists and staffers will wield power over the temporary employees, i.e., representatives. This problem can be ameliorated by subjecting staff to the same eight consecutive year employment limit as the elected officials. As for the lobbyists, any increase in leverage they carry, in my opinion, would be offset by the reduction in sitting representatives running for reelection and the increase in new faces and voting habits they would need to learn.

Conclusion

All in all, a voluntary term-limits pledge made by Republican congressional candidates would amount to a desperation play and would have potential short-term negative consequences; however in the long run, it would improve the quality of the nominees the Republican party offers to voters.