Americans have become increasingly frustrated with elected officials who are pathetically out of touch with both reality and the desires of the American people. One of the solutions that is often proposed to correct this disconnect between the people and their leaders is to enact term limits. The thinking is that if we limit the number of terms an individual can serve in office, we eliminate career politicians, replacing them with a regular stream of political novices who theoretically are more in touch with the will of their constituents.
I can certainly understand the reasoning behind the push for term limits. I’ve even argued for it in a previous post. But the more I’ve thought about the idea, the more I’ve convinced myself that term limits are not the answer. Sure, the legislative work done by Congress may improve after the establishment of term limits (in fact, I believe that it would improve substantially, at least in the short term), but there is a better way. And it requires no new legislation or amendment to the Constitution.
The solution is an informed electorate.
Why do we vote for a candidate? Is it because they are of a particular party, we recognize their name, or we agreed with a sound bite from one of their campaign speeches? Or do we consider their beliefs, their background, the people they choose to association with, and their record?
Many politicians will say anything to get elected. Do we blindly take their words at face value? Or do we investigate them to see if they are really who they say they are?
The push for term limits is really a cop-out. We have allowed ourselves to get into the mess we’re in by not doing our homework and instead taking a shallow and narrow look at the candidates before voting for them. If term limits are enacted, it will allow us to continue to take a casual and shallow approach to the voting process. We could vote for anyone without much consideration to our decision because, after all, if someone turns out to be a bum, they’ll only be in office a couple of terms anyway.
Occasionally, there will be individuals who are deserving of more terms than would be allowed under any new term limit legislation. Most of the time, two terms is probably enough. But what if one is a powerful champion of Constitutional liberties and the rights of the individual? Why should we be unable to continue to vote that person into office? (Perhaps this is why the framers of the Constitution did not include term limits — they expected voters to do their job.)
We do not need term limits. We need an informed electorate.
More than likely, term limits would provide a marked improvement over what we have now. But it is no substitute for an informed population choosing the best candidate, regardless of whether the individual being elected is new to public office or if they have served in Congress for decades.
Fortunately, it appears the American people are waking up. They are seeing that those in power would rather do the bidding of the President and their party leaders, rather than listen to the will of the people. They are becoming more informed on the issues, and are better able to see through the lies and double-talk of career politicians desperate for re-election.
We have a great blessing of freedom in this country. But if we are not diligent to preserve it, and elect individuals who respect the Constitution, we will eventually lose our freedoms. The federal government is growing at an alarming rate. As government grows, so does the threat to liberty. We must elect candidates who will work to reverse this course — ending the corruption and the march toward tyranny — while we still have the ability to vote.
To fix the mess in Congress, term limits are, by far, the easier answer. But an informed electorate is a much better solution.
