I am a big fan of U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. Whether you agree or disagree with the votes he casts as a legislator, all Georgia Republicans should respect the thankless job he has done as a pioneer for the Southern conservative movement. Yet some of my conservative friends, many of whom are a lot smarter than me, are hesitant to support his re-election bid because he has “been there too long” or because he is a “career politician.” Last year, the same was said about Gov. Nathan Deal.
I understand that those frustrated with the government immediately applaud the idea of term limit. However — while many might say that my judgement is skewed due to the relationships I have– I think any objective person who studies term limits would still conclude the things that I have.
When you are campaigning on the stump it is easy to cry out for term limits. It is an easy one-liner, it always generates lots of applause and zero substance is required. To me, it says, “I do not have anything else to say so I am just going to insult the voters by telling them that they do not have the brains to elect the right people on their own.”
So, in the name of common sense, the following are winners when/if The Golden Age of Term Limits dawns:
Lobbyist and Special Interest advocates – If you were a gun-for-hire on Capitol Hill, who would you rather try to manipulate: A wise statesmen who has been in power for 20 years or a freshman who has no idea where to find the bathroom?
Statistically, a veteran member of Congress can expect a safe re-election with or without special interest money, and does not need much financial assistance. Political scientists have called it the “Sophomore Surge” when, after two or three terms, a legislator is comfortable with the district, and is no longer vulnerable to being upset by a challenger.
Before then, new members are more desperate to raise money and willing to listen to those who donate. Of course this is generalizing regarding a complex system but I think in any job, no matter the field of work, a rookie can be more easily persuaded than a veteran.
Bureaucrats – New members of Congress frequently hire their predecessor’s staff. The chief of staff to a freshman member probably wields more influence over his boss’s decisions than the chief of staff to a veteran lawmaker.
Who would you rather have as the decision maker in the office? The guy you can vote out and replace? Or the guy who is behind the scenes and is not accountable to any scrutiny? Even if the new member brings a fresh staff, the other non-elected officials working in government are still empowered with the turnover.
The term-limited politician – Lame-duck politicians might spend their waning terms lining up lucrative private sector jobs or working on their golf game, with no remaining
accountability. Removing accountability and pressure to succeed may hurt citizens more than allowing politicians to stay in office as long as their voters re-elect them.
The incumbent also has an opportunity to hand-pick his successor. The lame duck can assist by lining up the money, the staff, and supporters, and the chosen one has only to run as a proxy. This offers change in name only.
The Executive Branch – When Lyndon B. Johnson was in the White House, many Georgians joked that Sen. Richard B. Russell was really the president. Long-time legislators like Russell, Ted Kennedy and Sam Rayburn wielded great influence over the executive branch.
Without titans in the legislature, the president, his staff, and federal employees are empowered and the legislative watchdogs will be clawless. For example, President Bill Clinton would have loved term limits for House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990s.
To understand Article II of the Constitution, you need to acknowledge that the value of Congress is to keep one man from having too much power. When massive turnover takes all the clout out of Congress, the president has more authority.
Rural States – Without a congressional seniority system, Georgia and the South lose influence. On an equal playing field, more populous states, like New York and Illinois, with more members of Congress will always be given more attention than somewhere like South Carolina.
Tenure allows rural states with veteran members to consolidate their influence through gaining expertise.
When Trent Lott was Senate Majority leader, Mississippi benefited tremendously. Georgia benefitted by having Newt Gingrich representing us during his House speaker tenure. And modern Georgia’s continuing military presence, including manufacturers like Lockheed, was formed by long-serving members like Congressman Carl Vinson and Sens. Richard Russell and Sam Nunn, each of whom chaired his chamber’s Armed Service Committee.
Many states have term limits. California is an example and Georgians should ask themselves whether they want government more like California or less.
What evidence demonstrates that states with term limits are run better or their elected officials are more in touch with their constituents?
I do admire those who term limit themselves. If your goal is to serve and do what’s right and then return home, that’s great. I have many friends in politics who’ve done just that and I hold them in high regard.
The problem we run into is that most of those who make a promise to stop running for re-election don’t keep those promises, and I have a problem with that.
The debate is one worth having, but I am not really sure term limits are anything other than a battle cry for the impatient. The bottom line is this: They are not going to happen. This issue is a waste of time. So, as a country with lots of problems, our focus should be on issues that matter.
The author is an insurance agent in Gwinnett County and the son of former U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga.
