Are you for or against Term Limits?

A Discussion on the Value of Term Limits

“Public Service is just that, a period when you serve your fellow man. I have served enough, and I am going home.”
This is attributed to George Washington when he was asked to serve again as President. I can not vouch for its accuracy, but it is a good starting point for a discussion. Currently, there is not a federal limitation to the number of terms a member of congress can serve, or a limit to his ability to serve in both houses and/or consider a run at the Oval Office. Is this really in our country’s best interest?

Certainly it can be argued that as individuals learn more about their counterparts, as well as their own roles in any given profession, they can acquire greater abilities to search out resources and fellow-thinkers, even take sage advice and counsel from those with whom they have diametrically opposed positions. It can be intuited that this advice and counsel could give a person reason and time to pause and reflect upon a point of view not previously considered within his/her own circle of advisors. Logically, in a private-sector enterprise, you are believed to have a greater knowledge of the inner workings and the most effective, productive way to receive help and support for a given project if you have a reasonable length of time in service to your enterprises. These are all arguments in favor of allowing our elected officials to remain in office as long as possible.

In the private sector, there are certainly good reasons for retaining and promoting long-term employees. They may have shown, for example, a great ability to understand the customer’s needs beyond that of a new employee; ability learned through time to rationally remove a doubt in the customer’s mind of a products ability to fulfill the current requirements. It’s often said, “call X, he is the only one who may have seen this before and he can provide you the best answer.” Certainly, as individuals, we feel more at ease when we speak to the same individual at a given company, who can remember us, can empathize with our concern, and connect us to the person or office that most easily can solve our need.

The private sector, however, is not elected. The private sector exists, at its core, for one reason, and one only: to survive and become the company of choice for customers, to drive to the bottom line ever greater profits, to hand the shareholders/owners a good return on their investment. In the main, those companies who achieve those goals become distinguished, the employees who assist the company to reach its goals are well rewarded, and the CEO’s are properly compensated. Conversely, employees at any level who fail to share in this core behavior are eliminated, from the dismissal of an employee who fails to show up on time to the removal of a CEO who does not meet shareholders expectations, or the takeover of a business by creditors when the directors and management fail to meet financial obligations. This is the “free market” at its’ most basic level.

Our federal, state, and local governments, and the elected officials who guide them, however, operate on entirely different models. Our government is required by the public to provide basic services: military protection; trade agreements; schools; public safety services; and code-enforcement, to broadly cover the spectrum. These elected officials are reasonably expected to take the very wide view, that is: to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of citizens, at the best possible price. Unlike the private sector, however, no great accolades or honors are given to officials and governments who do the best; no financial or public honors are forthcoming. In the main, sadly, most elected officials serve well and with honor and distinction, and deserve accolades for achieving the results required by the citizens, honors they rarely publicly receive.

With power, however, comes the ability of corruption; the ability to appear benign and to simultaneously destroy the public trust. Allegations of malfeasance in office are as old as our country, even before our time, and beyond our shores, these charges are not new to public service. As elected officials remain in office, the temptations to accept personal gain for this favor or that contract become more pronounced; even innocent charities can be caught up in scandals. Old and recent reports of elected officials receiving favors to push legislation that favors one business or another, or allow a developer to build a subdivision without proper safety review, fall upon elected officials without regard to party affiliation.

Is the acceptance of bribes, gifts, and contributions a just reward for “bringing home the bacon?” Is it our Pollyanna belief that “good people will not do this or that evil thing?” Or is it a symptom of the changed personality of public service? If we set term limits, if we do not allow seniority or longevity in office to become a trading post for bribes and corruption, will we be able to reduce the amount of malfeasance in office? For example, should a person running for office know in advance this was not a career assignment, but only a temporary duty post, would they be more willing to look after the common good rather than their own? It seems to be a discussion worth having, on local, state, and national levels. I for one believe term limits should be set, on and across all levels of government, Perhaps in doing so, we can rebuild the public trust, restore confidence that those we elect are actually performing public service, and are not turning responsibility and honorable discharge of their duties into personal gain and fortune. If a person is elevated to public office by their peers, with the knowledge that they shall soon return to civilian life, would they be more able to look past the possibility of large donations for the next election, for the next bill passed? Would it be possible then for our elected officials to work for the common good of the population, to have a greater understanding and compassion of the laws they pass, knowing full well that in a set time they also would be subject to those same laws and regulations?

I postulate that it would, that the knowledge of their equal footing after this term was completed, might be a stepping-stone to dismantling the continued corruption and holier-than-thou attitude currently so vividly displayed in our elected officials. Should or could we dismantle the “immunity from prosecution” that now surrounds our public officials, so they could understand that civil penalties can be annexed to crimes of malfeasance committed in office; that prosecution for acts of unfair bias will be forthcoming? I again postulate this would a major step forward in removing the temptation to self-gain from public office.

With the knowledge that this is not a new position, I would urge all citizens to seriously consider the effect this type of legislation would have; the positive effect it could produce in restoring our faith in our governments, and the larger effect it may have on our standing worldwide.