![Why (Not) Term Limits?]()
by Art Smith
Term limits have lately become a popular topic of conversation. When a lot of folks start getting fed up with what's happening in Washington, term limits are sometimes becomes strategy #1 for solving the problem. But it's like the idea of a flat tax or domestic drilling... it sounds good as a sound bite, but what does it really end up meaning, and why do we really think it's going to help?
Frankly, I was a big supporter of the idea some years ago (back when Neal Smith represented my US House district in Congress), but I have figured out that the reason I was such a big supporter was specifically because of Neal Smith. That is, I wanted him out of office, and term limits sounded like an easy way to accomplish it. It was a specific, tactical, selfish reason.
I certainly recognize that there are other reasons, some of which are compelling. Let's make a list, shall we?
I don't like the person who's currently my (legislator, governor, etc.). From my own party, I've heard activists actually say "How else do we get rid of Tom Harkin (Senator from Iowa)?". Wow, so then what happens when we get someone in office who we actually like? You can't have it both ways... implementing term limits is not the way to move your agenda forward. Term limits will likely cause us more difficulty in moving the agenda forward. What you need is to bring candidates who can win elections.
Two terms (or one, or three, whatever the number of the month is) are enough for anyone to accomplish what they need to accomplish. If the purpose of sending someone to represent us in Washington or our state capital is to accomplish some singular thing, this might actually make sense. But the purpose of the legislatures includes doing a good deal of work that must be [...]
