PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
comments
76
options
 
Friday, November 13, 2009

 

 

Earlier this week, Senator Jim DeMint and several GOP colleagues unveiled a bill that would require all federal lawmakers to give up their jobs after serving a fixed number of years. This would be a constitutional amendment. Senators would max out at 18 years (three terms); and House members would max out at six years (also three terms). In other words, term limits.

Good luck with that one.

When you cover politics long enough (that would be me), it's amazing how often all the old stuff gets re-branded as something new. When I heard the news about DeMint's bill, I was instantly transported back to 1990, when term limit talk was all the rage in Republican circles. GOP strategists kept telling me how important it was to take America back to the concept of "citizen legislators." They argued that all congressmen should be required to cough up their seats (and their perks) after only a few terms, because, as one strategist told me, by that point "any congressman is no longer committed to any interest except his own."

I kept insisting that they were hot for term limits only because they had been out of power in the House since 1955; that their real aim was to slap term limits on Democrats in order to compel them to retire - thus creating open seats and hiking the odds of Republicans taking back the chamber. And they kept telling me: oh no, that's not it, this is really a matter of principle, this should apply to all members regardless of party.

Indeed, their fervor for term limits was written into Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, the pact of principles that conservatives embraced during their successful campaign to take back the Congress in 1994. During that campaign, in fact, scores of Republican House candidates promised to serve only a few terms, then quit their seats. Seventy-three of those candidates won their elections.

Yet by early in the next decade, 68 of those 73 had broken their promises and opted to stick around indefinitely.

Take George Nethercutt, for instance. He ousted Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley in 1994, winning that seat in part by pledging to serve only three terms and leave office in January 2001; he wound up staying until 2005. Better yet, consider Jeff Flake. The Arizona conservative also promised to serve only three terms and vacate his seat in January 2001; last I heard, Flake was still around, voting against the economic stimulus and health care reform.

As former Republican congressman J.C. Watts (one of the few promise-keepers) wryly remarked in a newspaper column several weeks ago, "Unfortunately, those 68 representatives...concluded that America could not survive without their continued services." In essence, he wrote, "The Contract With America lost its soul at the turn of the century."

It's no mystery what happened: Once the House Republicans got the power, they decided it was better to enjoy its fruits for as long as possible. They also discovered that they would never land the plum committee jobs (and send bushels of federal bucks back to the district) unless they stuck around long enough to get the requisite seniority. Which is why, after a flurry of Republican attempts to pass a term-limits constitutional amendment on the House floor in 1995, the issue was never heard from again.

Until Senator DeMint resurrected it this week. He told The Washington Times that "as long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buy off special interests...and trading favors for pork - in short, amassing their own power." But his pitch won't go anywhere, either; it's noteworthy that he has attracted only two Republican co-sponsors, one of whom is Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who's leaving town anyway to run for governor in Texas.

The vast majority of federal lawmakers - in both parties - have zero interest in truncating their careers. (Nor do the voters seem to care one way or the other; even though polls always show majority support for term limits, congressmen are rarely punished for breaking their promises to leave. Mike McIntyre, a North Carolina Democratic congressmen, was first elected in 1996 after pledging to cap his service at 12 years. He wasn't supposed to run for re-election again in 2008. He did it anyway. He won by 38 percentage points.)

It's human nature, really. Politicians, once they have power, are strongly inclined to keep it. And the impulse is timeless. In fact, there once was a national chamber that required its members to serve limited terms. But when the leaders actually tried to enforce this rule for the first time, the members went ballistic. The incumbents who had overstayed their statutory welcome created bedlam on the floor, and the leaders dropped the rule - prompting one member to lament, "I never saw more indecent conduct in any assembly before."

The date was March 1, 1784, the chamber was the Continental Congress, and the lamenting member was future president James Monroe.

 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 12:08 PM  Permalink | 76 comments
Comments   
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:27 PM, 11/13/2009
    Term limits will eventually deliver us from Obama. I've always wondered what Barack Obama's or Nancy Pelosi's job histories look like. Have they ever held a real job, or has it always been some kind of government or community organizing kind of thing? I can't picture pulling up to a Burger King drive thru back in the day and having a young Pelosi handing me a Whopper.
    jmc
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:30 PM, 11/13/2009
    Polman is indirectly responsible for what happened at Fort Hood. How? By spending the last 4 years calling Bush/Cheyney named for violating the Constitution and then calling for CIA prosecutions. Polman (and his ilk) caused confusion and fear in those who protect us. The protectors did not do their job out of fear of being prosecuted (persecuted more like it) by a mob of angry forthy liberals. This lead to the culture in the Army that allowed the Fort Hood guy to never be called out on his conduct. Way to go Polman.
    CD75
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:39 PM, 11/13/2009
    Polman caused the Fort Hood massacre now? You must be doing a great job, Dick. The crazies are becoming crazier. Term limits aren't the real problem. The Constitution is a poorly written document that doesn't function in modern times. It was written for an agrarian society. A democratic republic is an inefficient form of government in general. Since most American voters are ruled by fear and anger, nothing gets accomplished. Giving a senator of Montana the same power as a senator of New York is not only foolish, it's destructive.
    HandNik
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:39 PM, 11/13/2009
    CD75, what the hell are you talking about?
    anonymous
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:43 PM, 11/13/2009
    I have long endorsed term limits as a way to 'drain the cesspool' of Wash DC. in Nancy Pelosi's words, 12 years in any one seat is all you get, Senator or House of Reps., also change the House elections to every 4 years while we're at it. I can't believe I have agreed w/Mr. Polman 2 of the last 3 blogs. I still think his conservative grad student is writing some of these :) As for yesterdays blog, Palin and Bachmann (and Dana Perino too) are really good looking conservative women. I love that in a woman :)
    NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:43 PM, 11/13/2009
    Yes, term limits for all, including CD75.
    RunWrite
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:47 PM, 11/13/2009
    Hey CD, does your arm cramp up when you spend all that time holding up master Rush's poster with one hand?
    jrotten
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:51 PM, 11/13/2009
    I can just picture it now. First, the campigns are stocked with candidates nobody knows or likes. Remember that polls show repeatedly that voters want term limits, but they want their hime rep to stay on. Then first Congress after the amendment passes has about 350 freshmen members. All of the chairmanships are turned over. There will be so few members left with leadership material, the infighting for chairmanships will go on until June. That will happen over and over again and the special interests will still find a way to dominate. In other words, nobody left to govern but the special interests.
    SteveMG
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:02 PM, 11/13/2009
    Polman is trying with all his might not to write about anything Obama. It is amazing how he writes about term limits on the day it was announced that KSM will be tried in federal court in NYC. It is also uncanny timing that this announcement is made the day after Obama leaves for a nine day trip to Asia, so there will be little chance if any to ask him about this atrocious decision. So KSM will be tried in NYC, judged by a jury of his peers (will they need 12 Muslims in the jury box?), will have free legal representation, it will be a media circus, and I am also suspicious this decision was made to bring out all the Bush torture incidents. Maybe KSM will have the charges thrown out and walk out of court a free man, and Obama can then blame something else on Bush. And Polman writes about term limits.
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:16 PM, 11/13/2009
    Tommy, you been drinking tea? The reason they can try KSM in NYC is because he ran his mouth and boasted of his role. They won'thave to go there about the torture. He's gonna have representation because in this country defendents are entitled to representation. And since shen do you need 12 muslims in the jury box just because you have a muslim defendant? If KSM somehow succeeded in getting the charges dismissed he still won't walk, he would remain in custody because there will inevitably be other charges pending. Kind of like the DC Sniper, he was only charged and convicted for some of the murders. If he had soehow beat the first trial he would have been charged with other murders later.
    SteveMG
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:23 PM, 11/13/2009
    There are consistent enough complaints that I'm beginning to think that we should all do a list of what Polman should write about each day and get him to do what this blog wants. Whatever scores the most votes, I'm sure Polman will assent. This is our blog, not his.
    RunWrite
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:27 PM, 11/13/2009
    Note to Longshanks from yesterday's blog. After 10 months, Bush had passed bi-partisanship legislation called No Child Left Behind, which was written with Ted Kennedy. And yes, 9/11 happened on his watch. After 10 months, Obama has no bi-partisan legislation (even though he was the first post-partisan president), and Fort Hood happened on his watch. So what was your point?
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:35 PM, 11/13/2009
    Yes, Polman is responsible, indirectly. The attacks by the Left on our Intelligence Agencies and the Left's calling anyone who is agressive on counter-terrorism as criminals and torturers, has created a culture of timidness and a culture of "I am not sticking my neck out on the line" in our Intelligence Agencies. The Angry Left has caused our protectors to not do their job out of fear of being hung out to dry by the Left (see Holder).
    CD75
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:37 PM, 11/13/2009
    It does seem that term limits seem to come up when the GOP is in the minority. They could have done it between 2003-2007...when they controlled both houses of Congress. But they were too caught up in scandals. That being said...Mr. Polman talks an awful lot about the GOP, even though they are in the minority. I think he is a closet republican. Did anyone hear about the about Democratic Strategy for the 2010 midterms. They want to nationalize the elections and make it a referendum on Obama. With poll numbers in the low 50's (and high 40's if you count likely voters)...good luck with that one.
    TommyF


View comments: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  | 
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.