As of January of this year, the U.S. Congress has an approval rating of 16 percent. Americans are understandably frustrated with the mess our legislative branch has become. Regardless of party affiliation, roughly 80 percent of us can admit that the partisan gridlock that has overcome Washington is a problem.
And, when congressional elections happen in November of this year, not much is likely to change if the past is any indication. This is because Congress does not have term limits, which means that most of the people collaborating to make recent congresses historically unproductive will be running to keep their seats come fall.
A good way to introduce at least a small degree of change into a system that is obviously not working for us very well would be to impose reasonable term limits on congressmen and women — two terms for senators, perhaps, and three or four for representatives, if I wanted to name a fairly stringent restriction.
The current system is clearly not suited to our present political climate. The theory behind our congressional elections is that they are supposed to be self-regulating — if a legislator is ineffective or incompetent, they should simply not win re-election. But that is not how congressional elections work in practice. Even though most of us disapprove of Congress, there is approximately a 96 percent incumbency rate. After all, the other congressmen are the problem, but my congressman is fine.
All of this means that we are re-electing the same people over and over again without any regulation on how many times we can make the same mistake.
Now, some people will very reasonably say that instituting term limits will fill Congress with unproven, inexperienced legislators. This might have been an obvious drawback in past years with more effective Congresses, but these days I question whether it would really make much of a difference. A congressman or woman representing the interests of their constituents, even if they were doing it on a bit of a learning curve, would be a refreshing improvement.
Not to mention that we would hardly be emptying the Senate every six years and replacing everyone — elections, as always, would remain staggered, and we would not end up with an entire body full of freshmen senators.
Additional benefits of term limits abound: It might incentivize our congressmen and women to actually show up to their jobs if they knew their time in power was not endless. When infinite re-election is no longer a possibility, the consequences for ending one’s congressional career with a bill that is necessary, but not politically expedient, are lowered.
With re-election forever hanging in the balance, Congressmen and women are encouraged to promote hardline partisan politics that will sit well with the very few, very ideologically extreme people who vote in congressional elections. Without the threat of losing those voters to balance their actions, they might be more inspired to create an actual legacy of action before their terms run out.
Furthermore, if a politician has served well as senator or representative, it isn’t as though they’ll vanish completely from public service and government when their term runs out. There are other elected offices in this country than those in Congress.
The inefficacy of Congress can’t be entirely blamed on the unending slog of re-election and pandering to partisan interests, but instituting a little restriction on their perpetual gridlock machine to turn it over once in a while to new legislators can only help with that particular issue.
That’s not likely to happen, though, because the people who would have to move it forwards are the people it would effectively — and rightfully — put out of work.
So unless there are a significant number of changes of heart in Washington, it looks like we’re in for yet more ineffective sessions going forward.