Term Limits to Quell Corrupt Career Politicians
Are They a Solution?

By Sara Pentz

When novelist Vince Flynn wrote his best-selling book “Term Limits” he captured the essence of one of the stickiest issues in the American electoral process. Essentially, his story centers around three powerful and unscrupulous politicians who are brutally murdered by a group of assassins in a new twist on the concept of term limits. A seemingly rogue band of US patriots threatens to take down the US government one politician at a time unless the government stops politics as usual.

Flynn’s solution is, naturally, dramatized in exaggerated fashion in order to make his point that without term limits politicians can become professionals without scruples, hopeless fools, power mongers and dangerous demagogues. His theme demonstrates the reality that much of the frustration with Washington politics today is the power elected officials hold without being obligated to the principles of limited government as outlined in the US Constitution.

Certainly, no one would call for Mr. Flynn’s chilling plot to become a reality, but it strikes a nerve that has been under discussion for many years. That there is waste and corruption at the highest levels of government; that politicians too often make and then break campaign promises for the expediency of reelection; that they often ignore moral principles; that they use relationships to advance their own agendas; that they spend the taxpayers money on programs that curry special-interest favor; that they certainly ignore the mandate of the US Constitution about a limited government; and that there are gross inconsistencies in the politics exhibited by many of them.

Many blame a system that - they say - has no way to stop the bloating of government by these elected officials who have become obligated to the special interests that make possible their continued election to Congress. And so they opt for term limits.

One example of the enormous betrayal by politicians is the behavior of Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who has been embroiled in accusations left and right about his ethics, and his use of power and money to influence. In a Wall Street Journal Online article, March 28, 2005, the editors write about this.

“By now you have surely read about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethics

troubles. Probably, too, you aren't entirely clear as to what those troubles are--something to do with questionable junkets, Indian casino money, funny business on the House Ethics Committee, stuff down in Texas.”

In summary, Mr. Delay has allegedly endorsed candidates providing they vote his way. He has participated in junkets allegedly violating House rules about who pays for such expenses. And he is battling the Democrat Texas Attorney General regarding some campaign finance issues and indictments of his associates - although, take note, the Attorney General is a Democrat who has an ongoing battle with Sen. DeLay.

The Wall Street Journals editors write:

“Taken separately, and on present evidence, none of the latest charges directly touch Mr. DeLay; at worst, they paint a picture of a man who makes enemies by playing political hardball and loses admirers by resorting to politics-as-usual.”

“The problem… is that Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of

revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits.”

“Whether Mr. DeLay violated the small print of House Ethics or campaign-finance rules is thus largely beside the point. His real fault lies in betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out.”

Term Limits or Not

Some 22 states have adopted term limits. US Senators and members of the House of Representatives do not have term limits, while the President of the United States does. The US Constitution does not call for term limits, in part, because the authors, those gentlemen who had left behind government tyrannies, could not fathom the idea of a career politician. They opted for what they called rotation in the service of government. It was a gentleman’s agreement.

Those who favor term limits believe that restricting congressional terms would create more competitive elections and increase the diversity of those who are elected. They believe that so-called fresh blood would enliven and even shake up the bureaucracies of a bloated government structure. Most important, they maintain, term limits would end politics as a career goal.

The question remains for those who believe in term limits: Why would any newly elected novice, by virtue of his ‘newness,’ be any more or less intelligent or courageous than an incumbent in addressing such problems as protecting individual rights and property ownership? These are matters of principle that are stuck hard and fast into the structure of the Constitution upon which our government is based.

Those not in favor of term limits say such a law would force many good men out of office solely because of their longevity. These men are thought to be wise to the workings of government and understanding of the processes. Novices to elected offices, they say, are generally less informed. They would push to reinstitute the idea of citizen-legislators who would come to and go from the seat of government voluntarily. They also contend that free elections are the better way to rid Congress of ineffective and immoral politicians. And that to force an elected official out of office based on an artificial standard (of four or six years) is to eliminate free choice by the citizens who elected him.

Of course, this philosophy means that some people will choose a politician to return to Washington whom others think should not be reelected. But that’s the consequence of free choice - another principle upon which our country was founded.

The actual issue at the heart of the squabble over term limits is that the purpose of government has been lost in the squishy redefinition of the institution. Truth be said that many elected officials, today, no longer share the core values of our Founding Fathers; those of honesty, integrity, pride, responsibility, dignity, honor, justice, truth and patriotism. Furthermore, they are no longer guided by the principles of life, liberty, economic freedom and the pursuit of happiness as outlined in the US Constitution.

At the heart of this is the question: Is the purpose of government to be a caretaker or is the purpose to protect our rights as citizens? There is no doubt that the question is at odds in the halls of Congress.

The fundamental issue, of course, is whether one should accept the Constitution as a valid document or allow men to rewrite it over time according to their political interpretations, and the whims and uncertainties of the moment. The answer would seem self-evident if it weren’t for the erratic behavior of so many politicians in Washington.

A Minor Miracle

On March 17, 2005, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal Online, referencing the 2006 budget process in Congress, made note of an unusual occurrence in the House of Representatives that may shed some light on the issue of term limits and the rotation of gentlemen politicians.

The article explains that the current Congressional budget process was designed by Democrats…expressly to disguise how much Congress spends.

“An annual budget resolution is passed each spring but it lacks the force of law and the Members routinely exceed it when they pass individual spending bills.”

“Republicans deplored all of this when they were in the minority, and "budget process reform" was a rallying cry through the 1980s. But now that they're running the asylum, they don't want spending accountability either. Last year they exceeded their budget limit by $500 million, and the leadership bitterly fought any reform.”

“Mark it down as a minor miracle: Congress has finally agreed to a little enforcement discipline against runaway spending, thanks to a band of Republican House Members who stared down their leadership.”

“They wanted some guarantee that the spending limits they approve at the beginning of the year -- which are announced with great fanfare -- will be enforced at the end when fewer Americans are watching.”

These 25 Republicans are young conservative backbenchers who have less power than other representatives. They are generally newly elected and thus are not thought to be knowledgeable players. But in this particular case they stood nose to nose with their ‘elders’ and their ‘elders’ blinked. They actually demanded that members of their own party, i.e., other Republicans, should mean what they say when they pass a budget. Said one young leader: "This is precisely the time to institutionalize the discipline that they have only begun to practice."

It was a courageous encounter. And it might just be the first clear demonstration that new blood in Congress could stem the tide of those who dictate - according to their own political prejudices - the law, the battles and the ideology of the country.

But more important than their high noon victory, these young Republicans are conservatives who, for the most part, stand for stopping a special interest-controlled Congress. And if they are encouraged by their successes, and they continue to be strong and determined, the future of politics may focus once again on principles rather than politics -- and term limits will not be necessary.