Who is really limited by term limits?

Frontiersman editorial board

The idea of term limits is one of those subjects that generate intense discussion and strong opinions from time to time. The concept behind limiting the number of terms a given politician can serve in one office is a curious one. The United States has long been a country suspicious of people in power. A great deal of the energy expended to produce and amend the Constitution was spent upon efforts to check power and maintain balance between the different branches of government.

Term limits are another attempt to check the amount of power consolidated in one person or office -- the idea being that a politician allowed to remain indefinitely in an office can accumulate more power and influence over the years, and then use that power and influence to remain in office even longer. When term limits were initially devised, the idea of a politician remaining in a single office indefinitely smacked too much of royalty for a citizenry with a new passion for democracy. That passion was so great, and the fear of royalty so powerful, that George Washington imposed a term limit on himself by simply refusing to run a third time.

The interesting thing about term limits, though, is that they limit the power of voters as much as the power of politicians. What's really being limited is the people's ability to choose the person they truly believe is best. It's nearly impossible to gauge how politicians feel about the subject. It's not uncommon for challengers to favor term limits and incumbents to abhor them -- for obvious reasons. Asking a politician or candidate how he or she feels about term limits is like asking a hockey coach for an opinion on the penalty box -- it's great when the other team's star in there, and not so good when his own star is in the sin bin.

People with no intention of running for office are the best judges of whether or not term limits are useful. In local politics, especially, it seems term limits can cause more trouble than benefit to voters. We know our local officials well enough to decide whether they're serving the public interest or not. We can impose term limits every time we go to the polls.

If you've found an elected official who is doing a great job for his or her constituency, though, a term limit essentially takes that vote out of your hands. It may leave you to choose between the second and third best choices, with the best choice relegated to spectator status. The most important question to ask when considering term limits, then, is not whether or not we trust our politicians, but whether or not we trust ourselves to monitor them and throw them out when they've failed us. Term limits today, it seems, are designed to protect lazy voters more than to regulate crooked politicians.