Term limits wouldn’t clean up Congress — they could make things worse

It’s tough to oppose a measure that theoretically would mean a Congress without Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). That’s the Republicans’ proposal for congressional term limits. 

Though politically popular, terms limits are a bad idea. The proposal for a constitutional amendment is a con game; these politicians know it’s highly unlikely to be enacted.

Term limits were the conservative craze when Democrats held the House majority for four decades. After the GOP won the House in 1994, it went through the motions on term limits and then moved on.

The current crop of self-styed anti-politicians revived it.

The proposal by Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), with 44 co-sponsors, almost all Republicans, would limit House members to three terms, or six years, and senators to two terms, or 12 years.

These limits are more rhetorical than reality for most of these advocates. “This is absolutely essential to end the establishment gerontocracy,” says Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), in his fourth term and showing no signs of bowing out. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) says his constituents are “excited” about term limits. He too is in his fourth term.

In the Senate, Cruz, planning to run for his third term next year, says, “I’m not going to do it unless everybody else does it.”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) broke his two-term pledge last year because he believes “the country is in too much peril” not to have him in the Senate. He actually wrote that, and may believe it.

The worst rap against congressional term limits is that they’re anti-democratic; elections determine terms. The pro-democratic way to improve Congress and politics is to create more competition, ending partisan gerrymandering and the campaign finance advantages enjoyed by most incumbents.

Term limits have been imposed on legislatures in 16 states with few, if any, benefits. Some of the leading sponsors of these measures in states like California and Michigan later said it was a mistake. 

California Republicans in the early 1990s pushed terms limits to end the political career of the powerful assembly speaker, Willie Brown, and to increase their representation in the assembly. Four years later, Brown left and then became the mayor of San Francisco. For more than a quarter century, Democrats have dominated the Assembly, currently with a 62 to 18 advantage.  
There were similar unintended consequences in 1951 when Republicans won approval of the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms. This was to do to Franklin Roosevelt, who won the presidency four times, in death what they couldn’t do when he was alive. 

Over the next 40 years, the only two presidents affected were Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, both Republicans.

In the current debate, the downsides are manifold, as a Brookings Institution study shows. With a $7 trillion federal budget, legislating is a fulltime job. More than a few will never measure up, but the best, such as Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Bob Dole (R-Kan.), were most effective after two terms.

The loss of expertise with term limits would give the executive branch more power. The vacuum would be filled by unelected staff and, especially, by well-heeled lobbyists. Members of Congress, knowing their time is limited, are easier prey for vested interests holding out the lure of a lucrative next career. The revolving door would keep revolving.

Looking at the experiences in states and foreign governments, Brookings found “many of the corruptive ‘swampy’ influences advocates contend would be curtailed by instituting term limits are, in fact, exacerbated by their implementation.” 

With term limits, cynics note, we wouldn’t have elderly senators with questionable capacity. A little over 20 years ago riding to the Capitol with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), we saw 99-year-old Strom Thurmond clueless as he was being wheeled into the Russell Senate Office Building: “If I’m ever like that, shoot me,” McCain said.

Better to leave it to voters. A mandatory retirement age would send some old-timers away, but it would also have prematurely retired 82-year-old Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and 81-year-old Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), two of the most effective congressional leaders ever. 

I’m not against all forms of term limits. Limits for congressional chairs (maybe the only Newt Gingrich innovation I liked) is a good idea. Term limits and a mandatory retirement age for appointed federal judges is an idea whose time has come.

But for elected politicians, leave it up to voters. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is a loud advocate for term limits. She won her last race by only 546 votes. Next year as she seeks her third term, Boebert may discover real term limits — elections.

Albert Hunt is the former executive editor of Bloomberg News. He previously served as reporter, bureau chief and Washington editor for The Wall Street Journal. For almost a quarter century he wrote a column on politics for The Wall Street Journal, then The International New York Times and Bloomberg View. He hosts “Politics War Room” with James Carville. Follow him on Twitter @AlHuntDC.