Term limits

Term limits are being pushed for again. A friend recently suggested term limits for Congress on a Facebook post. "12 years for Senate, 10 years for House. Or maybe less."

Term limits and I have gotten off on the wrong foot. The first time I was approached about term limits was in the parking lot of the Ralph's supermarket on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. A group of women asked me to sign their petition so that we could get rid of the current group of elected officials on the city council.

Since I actually liked and voted for the Democrats on the city council, I would not sign their petition for term limits. It just seemed a way of me giving permission for them to take away my right to choose.

That is the problem I have with term limits. It seems to be an issue that is raised to attack whoever the incumbent is. Perhaps I want to vote for that incumbent because I consider them to be the best person to do the job, in part because they have the experience and the track record that is needed.

I liked an answer to term limits I heard years ago. "We already have term limits. It's called voting."

HOWEVER ...

I understand how naive that can seem. With the influence of money, power and prestige, we do have a system that can favor the incumbent and make it difficult for the newcomer.

Without term limits, our system has career politicians, whose entire set of skills and experience are limited to politics. It is easy to see how someone like that will get caught up in the pursuit of personal power and wealth rather than serving the public good.

I can see the argument that term limits would take that temptation out of the equation because if you know you are going to be in the job for only a short time, you can't use it for personal enrichment. You go into the job knowing that you have a short time to achieve what you promised, and that you will go back into private life when you are done.

I'm reminded of the story of Cincinnatus, a Roman who answered the call of duty to defend Rome. He became a general, defeated the enemy and could have used his position to continue with great power in Rome. Instead, when his war was won, he left the army and returned to his life on the farm.

The story of Cincinnatus inspired another general, George Washington, who became our president and left office voluntarily after serving two terms. He was also the first president of the Society of the Cincinnati. By tradition, Washington established the two-term limit for presidents, which was not broken until Franklin Roosevelt. After Roosevelt, it became law.

But my other reservation about term limits is that there is a value to having an elected official who has served on the job for decades. There is an institutional and historic knowledge that comes with someone who has been there for so long. Such a person can have a positive impact on the process, and can keep a legislative body from making the same mistakes as in the past. Such as person can be a ready resource on a variety of matters.

I might consider term limits if perhaps: 1) it was not applied to current office holders. (Yeah, I know that won't be popular.) and 2) That after you serve your terms, you don't have a lifetime ban, but instead can run again after being out of office for a while. I could imagine some bright, energetic 25-year-old getting elected, serving his/her terms and then coming back and running again in their 40s or 50s. Why not have someone like that come back??

I'm not entirely persuaded to support term limits. Perhaps the next time someone approaches me with a clipboard and asks me to sign a petition, I'll think about it.