Dysfunction and gridlock have become Congress’s identifying traits in the past decade. The results have been ineffective or non-existent legislation on issues such as gun control, the budget and the debt. The problem is clearly ideological deadlock. In the case of gun control, for example, 90 percent of the American people supported background checks for gun purchases, yet the issue is still a source of major contention.
The problem of deadlock is rooted in both sides of the aisle, and while I may see the right as more responsible, that’s not the point. In fact, I think the two-party system itself is responsible for much of the dysfunction. But since introducing another party of significance to the political scene is only a shade short of impossible at the moment, I propose another solution that would go a long way and is slightly more viable, although by no means likely. To curb the effects of partisanship on our representatives, term limits — similar to the two-term limit imposed on the presidency — need to be instituted for all positions in Congress.
Think about it. A major reason many members of Congress are unwilling to budge from their entrenched positions is fear of being voted out of office. How many times have you heard a pundit say a politician couldn’t support a measure or take a contrary stance on an issue because it wasn’t “politically viable?” With extremely impassioned electorates who can make it a challenge for an incumbent to even win her own primary race, this fear has become even more influential. And it leads to either puppets who are voted out of office as soon as public opinion shifts, or seemingly immortal politicians so embedded in the minds of their electorate they can be censured by their colleagues for ethics violations and still win in a landslide — see Charlie Rangel, a New York Democrat who has served in the House since 1971. What is gained by allowing politicians to hold office indefinitely? It allows the average American to know something about candidates without putting effort into being informed.
But that may not be a good thing.
Forcing new candidates to run for office after a few terms would not only bring new ideas and personalities to the forefront of American politics, but it would also allow those in office to act on their convictions. For example, it would no longer be political suicide for members of Congress to come to a compromise on immigration or gun control if there were less to lose from an inflamed electorate’s momentary anger. If the NRA’s ability to singlehandedly topple incumbents in elections were not a concern, more Republicans would likely support mandatory background checks for gun purchases. Additionally, if term limits could grant people in Congress the flexibility to take stronger stands against interest groups like the NRA on issues, such as gun control, that carry far more political risk than they should, such an option would be worth pursuing. We must empower our Congress to spend less time trying to keep their seats and more time finding solutions to the problems of the American people.
Now, many would argue that imposing term limits would make it impossible for Congress to have the necessary experience to legislate effectively at a high level. Others might say that it would wreak havoc on the primarily seniority-based committee system prevalent in today’s legislature. But wouldn’t some drastic changes to the nature of Washington be beneficial? The popularity of Congress is unbelievably low, and there are constant cries by the media, the voters and politicians themselves that the system is broken and must be fixed.
Term limits would shake up the system more substantially than any reforms proposed by either party. The Republicans want to change things by cutting government spending, but by a margin that would make little to no difference in the long-term. The Democrats have rode a message of hope and change for years, but despite some significant accomplishments have not fundamentally altered the legislative process in any significant way. But despite their differences, the inaction of parties can be directly tied to a fear of losing elections, either by alienating their voters through a principled stand or drawing the ire of a powerful interest group.
If members of Congress knew they had a finite amount of time to serve, they would be less interested in staying in office and more committed to making an impact with the time they did have.
Forrest Brown is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
HARBATH: Compulsory attendance policies are harmful to students
By Julie Harbath | 21 hours agoBy permitting a return to antiquated, inflexible attendance policies, the University is jeopardizing student health and wellness.
ARRAS: The cavalier tendency to say “I do”
By Aoife Arras | 5 days agoIn continually promoting marriage-mindedness, the University and student organizations actually undermine the educational mission of this institution.
VAN DE SOMPEL: “Rules are Rules”
By Mo Van de Sompel | May 27, 2024In reality, rules are contextual, and enforcement is selective.
