Other than ending the cloture rule insanity in the U.S. Senate, only one possible reform would be sure to shake up the political gridlock that has ground the federal government to a halt for more than a decade: that is, term limits.
When term limits were a hot trend in the 1980s and ‘90s, there was an anti-incumbency rage providing most of the fuel, not only against members of Congress but against state lawmakers and some municipal officials. But desperate office-holders with their careers at stake and Americans philosophically opposed to term limits, eventually convinced most voters that limits were a bad, undemocratic notion.
No one seems to worry much over a term limit for the president, which has been the law since 1952. However, Americans became convinced that with limits on congressional and state offices, we would somehow lose our most valuable leaders. We'll probably withhold direct comment on that one.
What really hurt the term limits idea, it seems, was the overwhelming "throw the bums out" attitude behind it at the time, as most voters will tell you they like their own reps -- just not all those other bums.
Term limits proposed back then also tended to be for six or eight years, which is too short by any measure; but such was the outrage behind these initiatives.
If the nation were to reconsider term limits, we might look at something like the Senate career of Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who plans
That time frame allows for a fulfilling legislative career but keeps office-holders focused on the fact this shouldn't be the final chapter of a public life -- and it keeps them from getting stale and/or arrogant in office, clinging at all costs to their seat, making whatever political deals are necessary to protect their job.
Senator Bayh said he feels there are many ways he might serve, in either public or private roles, once he leaves the Senate. He will benefit, and the nation will benefit from having one of its more effective leaders assume a new position -- one where he might have a new surge of enthusiasm for serving.
His departure also illustrates the fallacy of the claim we would lose "our most experienced leaders" through term limits. Not really; they would just move on, as has former Senator Hillary Clinton -- and anyone who has ever moved from the House to the Senate, or to an administration post, a non-profit organization, or a commentator's job at a cable news network.
Periodic change and renewal would not harm our democracy; it would be more in line with what the founders envisioned as their goal in public service: Serve for a time and then leave the stage.
Email
Font Resize
| 
