The US Federal Government Should Not Pass a Congressional Term Limit Amendment

I. Popularity Is IrrelevantThe United States is a representative democracy, meaning that the populace doesn’t decide which laws should be passed. Instead, the populace elects representatives (i. e. congressmen) who pass laws for them. These congressmen can pass unpopular laws and disregard popular laws at their discretion. This means that the fact that the majority of people in the United States want term limits is irrelevant to whether or not congress has an obligation to pass them. But even if the United States were a direct democracy, this argument still commits the ad populum fallacy. A majority of people in Germany supported the rise of Nazism in the 1920s and 1930s, but that doesn’t mean that Nazism is a good political philosophy to uphold. [1]Even so, it’s uncertain whether people actually want term limits or not. Take the case of Oklahoma. The majority of the people in Oklahoma supported state congressional term limits, even though they later elected a congressmen who had been in office for almost 25 years. “Of course anti-legislative sentiment was so strong at the time that even rural voters joined in passing term limits. In Muskogee County [Oklahoma] voters went nearly 2-1 for term limits and in the same election returned to office a House member with nearly 25 years experience. ” If these people really wanted term limits, why did they continually elect someone to office for nearly 25 years? It seems people may not be as amenable to the concept of term limits as they think they are. [2]II. A Congressional Monopoly Is a False FearWhile it’s true that, in the current American political climate, congressmen typically get reelected, this isn’t a bad thing. Some of the problems with the idea that incumbent politicians are worse than newer politicians were stated in my first argument. Namely, that incumbent politicians are more experienced and less prone to the influence of lobbyists, both of which are huge pluses when it comes to congressional efficiency. Even so, there are periodically huge upsets in congressional races. There were huge upsets during the 2008 elections by Tea Party backed Republican challengers and notably Arlen Specter was defeated in his 2010 Senatorial campaign after serving for nearly 30 years. And in 2010 alone, 57 incumbents were defeated. The failing economy in 2008 forced a lot of incumbent republicans from office, the rise of the Tea Party got a lot of Tea Party backed congressmen in office at the expense of democrats and establishment republicans, and the general malice felt towards Obama in 2014 forced a lot of incumbent democrats from office. Upsets like these happen all the time because of shifting political climates, and the fact that, in certain years, most incumbents remain in office is simply a reflection of the how positive the populace views congress. [3][4][5]As for the claim that senior congressmen are typically chosen for roles in picking who joins with committees, I have two responses. One, these roles are better held by senior congressmen because they know better what kind of people need to be in each committee, and they know each individual congressmen better, and thus know better who’d fit in best in each committee. A newer politician doesn’t know the required roles or his fellow congressmen so well. And two, even if this was a problem, it doesn’t necessitate term limits so much as it does a reform of how people are selected for committees. For example, instead of term limits, a plan could be enacted whereby such roles are filled at random, thus giving newer congressmen more of a chance of having such roles. While I do think we need to treat newer congressmen more respectfully, I don’t think term limits are the best solution. All term limits do is eliminate long-term congressmen, making everyone essentially new, which has several drawbacks. A better solution would be more local, such as giving newer congressmen a bit more power to make new legislation, to pick committees, or to head committees. This would keep congress, as a whole, more experienced and less susceptible to the influence of lobbyists, but would give newer congressmen more of a say on the floor. Term limits are simply much too broad of a solution to be of any use. As I have explained before, people already have the power to impose term limits - by simply booting out all who they feel have served long enough. Term limits do help fix a few problems, but introduce new problems along with it. "And the problem isn't just that six years isn't enough time to understand the issues and the process. It's also not long enough to build strong relationships across the aisle, particularly given that a lot of other members will have to leave two or four years after she gets there. " If a public servant does a good job, why not reward their service with a positive vote and more time in office? [6]Sources[1]: . http://www.lexrex.com...[2]: . http://www.tulsaworld.com...[3]: . http://www.washingtonpost.com...[4]: . http://www.centerforpolitics.org...[5]: . https://en.wikipedia.org...[6]: . http://voices.washingtonpost.com...