Term limits for seats in Congress have been hotly debated for a number of years, but have come to a boil in recent years. Gridlock and frustration throughout every party have caused citizens and scholars to question why term limits have not yet been set. Of course, there is the classic argument that term limits would only do more harm, as the newly seated representatives would not be able to make up for the years of experience. However, this can best be battled by the notion that years of experiencing the only gridlock and having outside loyalties influence American government through financial gifts and donations to long-serving representatives, has not helped this country, and will not help this country in the future. Term limits should be mandated in order to combat such problems. Youthful exuberance vastly outweighs experience when it comes to the current American legislation. Gridlock cannot be broken through experience when it is all our representatives have experienced, it must be broken by the free and powerful voices and actions of new, excited, motivated representatives. This, of course, is not an immediate fix, but the lack of term limits does nothing but harm the people that are being represented. Term limits would also allow for more to be done in office, rather than re-election. The incumbent advantage is a well-known theory and it has been proven to be a significant advantage, however, it is not something to rely on without substantial campaigning.
Another perspective on this topic is the fact that the founding fathers did not aim for the United States government to remain stagnant. It is well known that many founding fathers, most notably Thomas Jefferson with his quote “No society can make a perpetual constitution”. This statement, of course, reflects the constitution but can be expanded to each branch of law. This extrapolation can be made by using the argument that, as the supreme law of the land and the basis of our government can change from generation to generation, each branch of government is subject to changes as well. What can be taken from this statement is that each generation has its own set of ideas, politics, and ethics. With this in mind, career politicians, no matter how open-minded or experienced, cannot be an ever-changing product of the present, as that is not the basis of human nature. People are shaped by their environment, whether this is their physical environment or their sociopolitical climate. The ideas of a generation can only be advocated for by said population. Career politicians born in the 1960’s are not best fit to represent the ideals of the modern citizen, although their input is still vital. For this to be avoided, term limits must be put in place.
It must be stated however, that term limits are not the only solution to the problems that plague our nation's capital. Change in the term limits should also necessitate changes in other facets of representatives, such as the amount of time each house representative sits. An increase in the of years a house representative serves, alongside term limits for Congress, and a host of other changes would be optimal in attempting to serve the government’s role to its best ability.
References
Bousquet, S., Leary, A., Bousquet, S., & Leary, A. (2018). Rick Scott’s term limits idea: Hugely popular and highly unrealistic. Retrieved from https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/04/23/rick-scotts-term-limits-idea-hugely-popular-and-highly-unrealistic/
Smith, R., & », M. (2018). Congressional Term Limits Without a Constitutional Amendment : FedSmith.com. Retrieved from https://www.fedsmith.com/2018/04/19/congressional-term-limits-without-constitutional-amendment/
Comments