Cursus Honorum – Term Limit Compromise

The topic of term limits for the Legislative branch in addition to the Executive branch has been widely discussed of late.  Bill Whittle has recently spoken about this topic in several videos, suggesting even the possibility of creating a new third party revolving around the concept of politicians serving a single term only.

I’m sure enthusiasm is probably not significant among the ruling class that holds these offices for decades, but I believe that there is overwhelming bipartisan support for the idea among the general electorate (my anecdotal beliefs being supporting by consistent polling over the years).

I’ve personally been ambivalent on the subject for years.  I of course see the grave concerns associated with perpetual incumbents and the potential benefits of injecting fresh representatives into the government.  However, I am also well aware of the benefits that come with having extremely experienced politicians and the potential chaos that could ensue from suddenly upending the system.  As with most political discussions both sides have their points, and heated as many are in recent months, we should thoroughly analyze the pros with the cons before making any decisions that could substantially alter our political system.

So, in that spirit, I propose a compromise.  I offer this not only in time honored democratic sense that it’s something everyone can begrudgingly agree to yet every leaves disappointed.  I believe that this compromise actually takes the best of both arguments, requires only a fairly simple and straightforward change, and could truly improve our system of government.

 

I titled this post “Cursus Honorum” after the term used in the Roman Republic to describe the path aspiring politicians would have to take in order to climb the ranks of high office.  In the later Republic, often the “rules” of the system were completely ignored and flagrantly violated (likely contributing to the fall of the Republic), but prior to those times for centuries the Roman system had a form of term limits.  Their system kept any one politician from holding a single position in perpetuity (e.g. Senator from XYZ State for 8 consecutive terms totaling 48 years).  It also kept politicians from merely moving from high office to high office with no break in between (e.g. Congressman for 5 terms, then immediately Senator for 3, then President for 2).  However, the Roman system did not bar politicians from continuing to serve and climb the ranks to higher office eventually nor did it stop someone who did a good job from returning back to lower offices they once held.

The Roman solution?  There was no hard limit to the number of terms a person could hold an office.  Rather, there was a limit to serving consecutive terms in high office.  Once out of office, there was a cooling off period before you could do anything but sit in the (unelected) Roman Senate.

 

If we were to apply such ban on consecutive terms, it would solve numerous concerns with the current system.

• There would no longer ever be an incumbent.
  • All advantages/disadvantages associated therewith would disappear.
  • New blood within the major parties would more easily be able to rise to the top and compete, rather than being stuck in the shadow of a political giant and having to wait for them to retire and vacate the seat.
    • Worst case scenario, a Congressional District may end up having 2 dominant politicians (a Cycle A candidate and a Cycle B candidate), but that at least doubles the amount of representation variety.
    • With the incumbency gone, not only does it make the election against the other party more competitive, it makes a primary challenge a little easier as well thereby substantially reducing complacency in all but the safest of districts.
  • It would also shake up the offices within the Legislature itself.
    •  You can’t be Speaker of the House/Minority Leader for decades if you can’t even be in Congress more than 2 years in a row.
      • Although a powerful politician out of office would still wield significant influence until they can get back in, at least while they’re out of office it permits the opportunity for others to take over leadership, share control, and potentially take the party in a slightly different direction under a different vision.
    • The various committee memberships would be reshuffled every election instead of having the same members of the XYZ committee for a decade falling into the pockets of special interests.
  • This would hopefully also crack open the door to allow Third Party candidates an opportunity to compete on slightly better ground. (Although reform to allow Third Parties a real chance is another topic entirely.)
• It would be a back-door to Campaign Reform.
  • Especially in Congress, it seems that as soon as a Congressmember gets elected, they immediately have to start fund raising and then campaigning again for re-election.
    • How many days are spent trying to raise money, holding rallies and other events, debating opponents, etc. instead of actually legislating?
      • As much as a politician may hate it, every minute he’s not campaigning is a minute his opponent is out there shaking hands and kissing babies to improve his lead.
    • How great is the influence on a politician to vote the correct way in order to ensure the support of a big donor for the upcoming election?  Or even just to quickly pass a “feel good” law before election day (*cough* stimulus check *cough*) to try and influence the average voter.
  • If politicians can’t run for consecutive offices then they will never have to forego their legislative duties for the demands of the campaign.
    • They would only campaign on their own time in their off years.  They could give the campaign their full attention without having to balance their duties and ultimately at least in some way neglecting their responsibilities.
• Politicians would be sent home reinforcing the premise of citizen representatives.
  • After their term is over, the politician must return to their home state and the electorate that sent them there in the first place.
    • Even a politician that tries to get home as often as they can by necessity spends a great deal of time in Washington away from their district and the people they represent.  Under consecutive term limits, even a dedicated “career politician” would have to spend at least 50% of their time living among the people they represent, and hopefully they will get a more genuine sense of the people and their concerns.
    • If, after however many years, the politician wants to run again, it will be up to his fellow citizens to decide to give him another shot.  He’s not the incumbent, and there is no longer that fog of uncertainty about whether recently passed legislation was actually beneficial.
      • Did this guy actually deliver on his promises?  6 years later, did his signature legislation actually turn out to be a train wreck?  We have other options now, so there’s no great pressure (or perhaps the opposite, inertia) to just keep him in office.
  • Politicians will have to work for a living.
    • Of course, some top level politicians will be able to get by with book deals or speaking engagements in the off years, but the vast majority of the members of Congress are not particularly well known and can’t parlay their office into great wealth.  Although I don’t expect a recent US Senator to be flipping burgers, they would still have to get jobs to provide for themselves and their families.
      • It would really be something to see if certain “representatives of the people” would actually return to their humble roots.
    • An important corollary to this is that they cannot spend their off years lingering around DC lobbying.  If you want to ever be elected from your home state again, you have to actually live and work in that state.  E.g. Rand Paul would go back to his ophthalmology practice.
• Politicians might actually voluntarily leave office
  • It feels like a rarity anymore that a leading politician would decide not to run for re-election for any reason other than moving to even higher office or the infirmity of extreme old age/illness.  It seems more common that a politician dies in office than willingly steps down.  The most common way a politician leaves office tends to be when they’re defeated in an election.
  • If politicians can’t run for re-election, I hypothesize that the number of politicians who will seek re-election (once their years off end) would be reduced.
    • Someone who needs to get a job in their off time might find they enjoy that career far more than politics, or it might pay better, etc.
    • Spending more time in your home state with your family might make them realize what they’re missing while in the Game of Thrones.  It might make someone realize their golden years are better spent playing with the grandkids or sitting on a tropical beach with their spouse.
    • As many politicians are likely narcissists with strong competitive streaks, it eliminates any stigma of being a quitter or failing to help hold a seat for your party based upon that incumbent advantage.  After your term, you can more easily just fade back into private life if that is what you would prefer.

 

I’ve gone on at length about what’s good about term limits and how most of the benefits can still be accomplished in a non-consecutive system that still allows later re-election.  Now please bear with me as I list the benefits touted by the opponents of term limits, and how this compromise will still preserve some of their valid concerns as well.

• Institutional knowledge can still be preserved.
  • As much as we may hate them, the 50 year Congressperson certainly knows how things are done.
    • If every member of Congress is replaced every two years with someone who has never held office before, it becomes amateur hour.  And as soon as they start to learn their jobs, they’re out of office.  These may be bright individuals with good ideas, but at best they don’t know the rules and intricate procedures of government.
    • Freshman Congressmen are (perhaps unfairly) stereotyped as lacking in influence, knowledge, and experience.  There is a benefit to having a cadre of experienced lawmakers who know how things are done who can help the new members achieve their goals.
      • And as has been proven by certain prominent groups on both sides in recent years, rather than being pushed around by the senior members of Congress, often a large freshman class can greatly influence the entire party even if the new representatives don’t hold the leadership roles.
  • The undesirable alternative is the strong possibility for that entrenched career bureaucrats will obtain even more power in the vacuum left by senior politicians, and the country will be run even more so by unelected administrative personnel.
• Promising candidates would not be tossed aside merely for the sake of novelty.
  • As much as the American people might hate most legislators and want to see them tossed, please think for a second about your favorite Senator or Representative.  Now imagine that they could only be involved in national politics for a single term.  Not good, huh?
    • Were they even your favorite before they were re-elected at least once?  Did you even know their name in their first term before they were re-elected?
  • How many times has our Right Angle crew said that conservatives are not sending our “best” into politics but into business and elsewhere?  There is indeed great talent out there,  but our bench of potential politicians may not be very deep.  A complete reset might just as easily replace average representatives with below average replacements.
• It maintains national and party stability.
  • It has been discussed many times by the Right Angle crew that institutions like the Senate were designed to keep the government grounded against the political winds that might sway the fickle House of Representatives.  Strict term limits would make potentially dangerous political shifts more likely.
    • We may at times despise entrenched officials, but they serve their own purpose in preserving the Republic.
  • Parties could still maintain some form of continuity of leadership despite changing offices.
    • As discussed above, the leadership of the parties would be more open to challenge, but even in a non-consecutive system those seeking re-election later could still remain active in the party to help guide the message and mentor new candidates.
    • The risk of a complete one-and-done term limits is that if there is no such thing as seniority in office, the party will have to resort to unelected positions of power or face anarchy.
      • In the current system the national committees have some power, but they’re still largely dominated by the changing fates of the politicians actually winning elections.  As anti-establishment as Trump was, it was clear that his victory in 2016 made him the leader of the party.  And despite Hillary’s attempts in 2008, Obama became the clear leader while he was in office.
      • In a vacuum in which no one has seniority except maybe the one term President, the parties would likely establish stronger unelected offices to organize themselves and maintain control.  This would then present an unelected and unaccountable shadow influence on politics, with a politician who hasn’t been in office for decades potentially still controlling the party.
        • Not that we know any real life powerful political families that might already attempt that level of control… at least those examples are still accountable to the electorate when they try to get back into the game.

 

If you’re still with me this far, I hope that you’ve considered my points and are perhaps persuaded by the benefits of such a compromise.  We have modeled so much of our Republican form of government after the civilizations of antiquity.  The wisdom of the ages have already laid out this possible political measure that allows for effective governance while simultaneously serving as a safeguard against stagnation and despotic tendencies.

I’d be happy to hear what others think.  And if I missed some huge point, please point it out so that I can wipe the egg off my face and reevaluate my entire world view.