Legislators have overstayed their welcome, term limits are needed
To support student journalism and the content you love, become a member of The Daily Orange today.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein recently announced that she would not be seeking re-election in 2024. The 89-year old has been a staple in the Democratic party since 1992, and currently serves on four Senate committees.
Feinstein calling it quits is at least a half decade overdue. According to the LA Times, the senator’s approval rating has been steadily declining since 2017, with her approval rating dipping to 30% last year. She recently has been losing her base of “strongly liberal” voters, including women, who typically have approved of Feinstein throughout her 30-year senatorial career, the LA Times reported
Political careers with lengths like Feinstein’s should not be the norm. Though America’s demographics and issues have shifted, citizens have seen the same faces in Congress for decades. According to a 2015 Gallup poll, 79% of Americans believed most members of Congress were generally out of touch with average Americans.The answer to this issue is simple: we need term limits for our elected officials at once.
When the U.S. doesn’t have political representation that reflects the people, our government falls behind legislatively. In countries where term limits on legislators are instituted, like Canada and Australia, popular policies like universal healthcare and lower drug prices are codified into law. Although six in 10 Americans support universal healthcare, the U.S. still relies on a private health care system. The private healthcare industry spent $700 million on lobbying in 2021, a new record.
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy wrote in the Seton Hall Legislative Journal that in the “fundraising treadmill”, politicians must spend a large portion of their time fundraising for reelection instead of legislating. Torres-Spelliscy pointed out the role big corporations have had in the legislative agenda by pointing out how lobbyists and special interests like the Koch brothers have pushed for and succeeded in lowering taxes for the rich and limiting climate change legislation.
If term limits were put into place, politicians would have less incentive to pander to the massive fundraisers who perpetually keep them in power because they don’t have to constantly focus on reelection. With a shorter time in office, politicians would push more aggressively for legislation.
Stephanie Zaso | Digital Design Director
This outcome is preferred, as politicians should be beholden to their constituents over large Political Action Committees. While one may argue that big fundraisers would still seek out candidates sympathetic to their causes, this wouldn’t be sustainable because term limits would create more turnover in Congress. Leadership in the Senate and the House wouldn’t be based on seniority, which means fundraisers would be making short-term investments on the campaigns of politicians who may not be able to execute their desires.
Another factor is age. When politicians have the opportunity to create decade-spanning careers from being in office, they historically tend to take it. While older generations deserve a voice in government, they are overrepresented and drown out the voice of the younger voting populations. Despite making up roughly 27% of the population, baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) and the silent generation (born between 1928 and 1945) make up 73% of the Senate. That figure is lower in the House, with just under half of representatives being from those generations, but still exceeds the generations’ shares in the general population.
This gap in age also means the values of newer generations and the future of the country will not be fully represented. The majority of Congress is making policy or denying policy for a future they will not have to live in. If term limits are instituted it eliminates the possibility of a career politician, a term that refers to politicians who serve for multiple decades. Hopefully, more generations and demographics would have representation in their federal government on issues that affect them.
The best solution is a four-term, eight-year limit for representatives in the House and a two-term, 12-year limit for senators. This gives them enough time to fulfill their legislative goals without overstaying their welcome.
The U.S. has already legitimized these kinds of limits on power with the 22nd Amendment, which states a president can serve no more than two terms. If we want a true system of checks and balances, the legislative branch needs to be given the same fair limitations that the president has.
Jish Sokolsky is a freshman broadcast and digital journalism major. His column appears biweekly. He can be reached at jasokols@g.syr.edu.
