Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, January 12, 1992 TAG: 9201130235
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: B-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARK E. RUSH
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
CONGRESS & THE COUNTRY
WHEN the dust settles and the rhetoric abates, the debate about the merits of term limits remains. There are strong arguments in favor and against the idea.Nonetheless, for better or for worse, there must be something to the fact that enough people in states such as Washington got angry enough in November to cause a visibly shaken Tom Foley - the speaker of the U.S. House - to come home and lobby against limits.
In favor of term limits stand those who argue that they are the best means of preventing the entrenchment of irresponsible incumbents. This argument is certainly appealing, especially when one considers that members of Congress who chose to run again were re-elected at roughly a 98 percent rate - regardless of scandals and misdoings.
Furthermore, many states - Virginia included - have laws that prevent chief executives from being re-elected in the same way as the presidency is limited to a two-term tenure. No one feels shortchanged that they cannot return their favored gubernatorial candidate to office, so why not force legislators out of office?
The response to such arguments - and it is a good one - is that we already have a procedure for term limitations. All we have to do is get rid of incumbents by voting against them. Furthermore, it is argued, term limits are inherently undemocratic because they prevent some voters from sending their favored candidate back to office when he or she is forced to retire.
Both sides of the debate overlook the realities of the political process.
Those who say that term limits are the solution overlook the fact that over the past several years, a lot of turnover has occurred - especially in Congress - due to retirement. Granted, an overwhelming number of candidates who do run for re-election are successful. But for the most part, Congress' composition has changed significantly over time despite the lack of any term limitations. Accordingly, the goal of term limitations - congressional turnover - is being met.
This would seem to strengthen the position of those who oppose the limits because they are undemocratic. To sustain the democratic process, voters simply have to pay enough attention to politics and punish delinquents at the election booth. It is our option as voters, and it clearly can work. This argument, however, is a bit shortsighted:
First, many aspects of the American electoral system are "undemocratic."
Our elections are staggered so that we can never vote for the entire national and state government at the same time. In addition, our elected officials have terms of different lengths. As a result, we can never throw out all the Democrats or all the Republicans in the same election.
To add another undemocratic measure such as term limits would actually be in keeping with the electoral process that the Founding Fathers established.
Second, to argue that the voters should be more responsible and keep an eye on their representatives is unrealistic and somewhat unfair.
Voters are entitled to expect their elected officials to behave in the same way they expect any other professional to maintain certain standards of performance. When we go to the doctor's office, we don't spend months reading the New England Journal of Medicine in order to be able to assess the doctor's track record and the state of the profession. If we go to court, we don't pore over law review articles in order to be up to date on the status of the law as it affects us.
This is not our job. We are entitled to believe that the doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs of the world are competent, well-behaved and responsible enough to be trusted in discharging their duties.
The same, said the pioneering political scientist E.E. Schattschneider, applies to voters - especially in a representative democracy such as ours. We elect our representatives with the presumption that they will behave honorably. If we wanted to remain appprised of all the doings in the nation's political arena, we would govern ourselves directly (and inefficiently) in huge town-meeting settings.
It is easy to criticize the average citizen for failing to live up to a classic democratic ideal. Nonetheless, and for better or for worse, enough of our underachieving citizenry feels motivated to propose term limits in order to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of politicians who are virtually undefeatable once they are elected.
If we can limit the terms of governors and presidents, why not limit the terms of legislators? Better, why not compromise? Instead of banning a former legislator from office, why not require an incumbent to sit out for one election every couple of terms? He or she could run again in the next election.
This would certainly inject a little competitiveness into the electoral arena, and would still keep candidates honest who wished to run again.
Furthermore, no citizen would be prevented outright from supporting his or her favored candidate. In fact, such a middle ground would force citizens to reassess their favored candidate's record by comparing it to that of the sitting incumbent.
Term limits may not ensure that all our politicians will behave responsibly. But their existence shows at least that our voters may not be the underachievers that critics suggest.
Mark E. Rush is assistant professor of politics at Washington and Lee University.