Armchair Voting Term limits are lazy man's democracy, and nothing is more American M. Harrison, for the editors
The argument against term limits is very simple. If a politician is not doing his job, you should simply vote him out. And if he's doing a good job, and he is reelected, why shouldn't he keep his job as long as he retains that popularity? Wouldn't term limits, if imposed on Congress, deny the people's will?
The answer is No, because the reelection of senators and representatives (or anyone who isn't the President) is nothing close to true democracy. Turnout in national midterm/congressional elections is generally a paltry 37% of registered voters, who are only themselves less than 80% of the full American voting-age population. So when a winner of a race gets 60% of the vote, which is considered a landslide and certainly a mandate to be Man of the People, he can thank the 18% of America who ended up approving of his performance enough to keep him around. This 18% is the American Voter who is legitimizing these champions of democracy (and keeping them in power).
But what about the remaining 70% who didn't vote? Voting may be an admirable expression of political opinion, but it is not required in order to be protected in a civil society. The social contract exchanges free behavior for government protection - nowhere is voting included in the contractual quid pro quo. Don't believe us? Just ask John Locke.
But you know this. Everyone does. Certainly, even the most politically-engaged person, from time-to-time, feels it necessary to abstain from an election in which he finds both candidates equally disgusting. Is he a failure as a citizen?
Of course not. Adults eventually realize that they've been told in elementary school is wrong. You don't have to vote to be an American. All you have to do is obey the law - you don't need an opinion on what the law should be.
Term limits are thus activist democracy for the disengaged. They are revolution by default. They conveniently and automatically expel a politician after a given period of time. It is the voice of the voiceless, dumping politicians indiscriminately. No man has ever been harmed by a politician being booted from office.
Term limits also limit the degree to which lobbyists can influence policy. Studies have shown that politicians become more beholden to lobbyists the longer they are in office, but term limits break them up before they can consummate their union by screwing the people.
Term limits also increase competition for office. Because the few voters who bother to turn out are exceptionally lazy, they generally vote for whoever they happen to recognize on the ballot. As a result, incumbents win nearly every time. (This conveniently lowers their already-paltry coterie of truly supporting voters.) But term limits make fresh faces the norm - and give the new guy a chance.
Term limits were, of course, not enshrined in the Constitution, because they were not necessary at this country's founding. But they are clearly a necessity in this pluralistic, fractured and apathetic society in which we now prosperously live.
Nothing is more American than the principle, derived from the Constitution, that governments are an necessary evil to constrained, not a benevolent force that gets better with age, or wiser with size.
But but, the statists snivel, what if a politician is doing amazing things? He's Mr. Smith in Washington with clout? Fighting for the common man against Big [Interest]? Defending American morality as a champion of the Family?
The answer is if the policies of a politician are sound, it will be politically-certain that his policies will be adopted by subsequent successful candidates. The opponents of term limits conveniently forget, for all of their adulation of democracy, that term limits only evict one man. If the people support Mr. Smith's positions, then they can simply elect a guy who promises to do exactly what he did. (This type of homogenous campaigning, if anyone noticed, is called a party system. Heard of it?) Conclusion: A popular party will continue to win, even if term limits keep knocking down its individual windbag drones.
But parties aren't the ones who hate term limits the most. It's the politicians, who seethe at the thought of being out of a job, even if they successfully do enough public-ass kissing to stay popular in the Zogby poll.
"Quite frankly, in my experience over the years, term limits basically take you out of office right about the time you are becoming effective at what you are trying to accomplish," one politician whined to his local paper. "Experience can be a good thing."
Of course, you'd like job security. How very French. Sadly, per the nuances of your chosen position of Representing Government and Making Laws, it's necessary that your term of duty be even more freely terminated than everyone else's.
Term limits are fighting for the people, more than any politician ever could. They vote the wheedlers out, with convenient regularity.
The above work is the opinion of the author, as well as The Prometheus Institute.
More on politics | If you like this work, you might also like: Look in the Mirror The striking similarities between successful conservatives and liberals
Less on politics | If you didn't like this work, you might like instead: Don't Bite the Invisible Hand That Feeds You Supporting regulation is one thing, but being anti-market is foolish
More from M. Harrison | If you like this author, you might also like: [nothing] The worthless rhetoric of campaigning Democrats and Republicans
