On the surface, term limits seems like a good idea to break up the bureaucracy the inhabits the Washington swamp. However, when you look more closely at term limits, they are not really a viable solution.
On Wednesday, American Greatness posted an article about term limits.
The article reports:
Attempts to restructure government at the federal level are mostly on the Democrat agenda. Pack the US Supreme Court. Elect presidents via popular vote. Turn Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, into states with two senators each. Implement national mail-in voting, automatic voter registration, legalize ballot harvesting, lower the voting age to 16, let felons vote, let noncitizens vote. And, of course, end the Senate filibuster. If they could, Democrats would do all of this.
Meanwhile, however, there is a growing bipartisan movement to implement term limits for members of the House and Senate. A bill has been introduced in the 119th Congress, and President Trump has supported term limits consistently since he first ran for president in 2016. But federal term limits would do more harm than good. Explaining why offers insights into how an entrenched bureaucracy gains power in democracies, and California is a prime example.
Term limits came to California back in 1990 via a ballot initiative, because it was the only way the state’s Republicans, still relatively influential, could get rid of Willie Brown. For decades, Assembly Speaker Brown controlled everything that happened in the state legislature. If Brown didn’t support your bill, your bill was dead. As a 25-year veteran member of the Assembly, Brown virtually ruled Sacramento by 1990. Every piece of legislation required his imprimatur. And every aspiring Democrat, including Brown’s protégé Kamala Harris, went through Brown on their way to prominence in state politics.
The consequences have been enormous. Brown may not have been a Republican favorite, but he got things done. By virtue of his many years in the Capitol, Brown knew how every lever of power worked, and he knew every bureaucrat, every union official, and every lobbyist. He was a perennial player; he knew the game backwards and forwards, and when something had to happen in California, Brown was there to make it happen. Say what you will about his politics or his party; back then, California had a government that worked.
The article concludes:
Imagine what Washington, DC, already gripped by a deep-state bureaucracy, would be like if elected politicians were termed out of office right about the point where they’d acquired enough experience to navigate this swamp. Whatever oversight is still possible, whatever reforms and restructurings that might be in the interests of the American people would no longer have advocates who had mastered the details and could exercise long-term leadership. Of course, many members of Congress become swamp rats, entrenched, bought, manipulated, and indifferent to their constituents. But our obligation as citizens is to expose them and ensure that they lose the next election. If they’re such a problem, we must find a candidate to oppose them who can earn a majority of the votes in their district. That’s how you term-limit a bad politician. You beat them in an election.
When you eliminate the bad politicians, you also eliminate the good ones. You turn the machinery of government over to people who have spent decades learning how to control elected politicians, many of whom come into Congress without any previous experience in government. It is easy to disparage all politicians and, therefore, wish to control them by sticking a revolving door into the system and pushing everyone in and out after 12 years. But be careful what you wish for.
If you term limit the elected officials and leave the bureaucrats, you will have a swamp run by bureaucrats. The real solution is for more Americans to get involved in primary elections and give us better candidates to vote for.