Arguments Against Term Limits
Some opposed to limits make an argument that goes something like this:
Opposing Argument 1:
"We already have them. All voters have to do is vote them out".
Congressmen often make this same argument themselves, because it serves their purpose of remaining congressmen.
With congressmen serving for decades at a time, and senators finally being ousted when they are closer to 100 than retirement age only following felony convictions, it is clear that the power of incumbency is a nearly insurmountable obstacle for a challenger. They stay as long as they can because they enjoy the job and power. Who wouldn't? The longer they stay, the more powerful they become. If we're honest with ourselves, most of us would admit that it would be very tough to resist the temptations of those influential positions. We would almost certainly do what we could to keep them. Human nature is what it is. If I were a congressman or senator, I would very likely want to stay for the benefit of myself and my family.
Opposing Argument 2:
"It takes a long time to understand how to be an effective, productive congressman. They need years of experience."
Some argue that it is a very difficult job. It takes a long time to understand the ins and the outs, and the procedures. They need years of experience in order to be effective.
If that were really true, there would never have been two-year terms in the first place. Logic would indicate that if it takes longer than a few months for a freshman legislator to be able to understand how and where to add to or propose new legislation, or how to vote "Yes" or "No" on another's proposal regarding what is good or bad for the country, than something is either wrong with the process, or the congressman himself. The solution? One or the other has to be changed.
More than likely it does not take years to know how to get copies of proposed legislation. Probably within the first few weeks, they can find where and when the votes are to be taken. Most of us learned that in the eighth grade when we went to Washington D.C. for a three-day visit. Even a directionally-challenged, brainless, neophyte public school educated freshman congressman, whose grammar school never made the trip should be able to figure it out.
For you freshmen congressmen who argue that it takes a decade or longer to understand this process, we offer help. The Capitol Building is where your discussions are held, and most votes are taken. It is located at East Capitol St. NE & First ST. NE, Washington, D.C. 20002. You usually meet in the House Chamber (that means "Big Room") in the South Wing. (Don't go to the North Wing, that is for senators. They have their own Big Room, and you are not allowed in there.) Ask your committee chairman how to present or add to a bill if you think you have a good idea.
Even for United States Congressmen, it shouldn't take more than a week to find the Big Room, and maybe only a few more months to discover how and where to go to present one's own thoughts or to vote.
There is little doubt though, that it probably does take a while to understand the details of how to develop a strategy to game the system for one's own benefit, while at the same time somehow convincing most constituents it is all being done for them. Remember the primary concern of a congressman is himself and his family, just like it is for you and I.
Appeasing the Critics
We have to use this natural human instinct of self-interest to our advantage. This may seem distasteful at first, but consider the following:
There are two main groups of people who consistently fight against term limits using primarily the arguments above: the Congressmen themselves of course, and also their constituents who like them. OK that seems like everyone, - but it isn't, mainly because the constituents who like and support their own guy don't like many of the "other thieving, corrupt parasitic scoundrels" from those other wacko states.
Let’s start with congressmen wanting to stay.
They would never support limits on themselves, and though can't legally stop an amendment through the channels of a State Constitutional Convention, they can be expected to do everything within their supreme power range to resist such a move. To believe that citizens have enough power to eliminate them all at this point in our national deterioration is absurd. They would make the legal procedure so difficult because their very existence depends upon it. Or who knows? Maybe they would illegally declare that it never happened, or was passed incorrectly. We would have no choice but to give up - UNLESS we can get them to somehow support it for their own selfish interest as well as ours.
Propose term limits for only new, incoming congressmen. Yes, those in office now absolutely are the problem; but they don't know we know it. Either that or they just don't really care because they are so powerful. They are clearly not the public servants they were intended to be, they are our rulers. They dictate; we obey. Grandfather the old vermin because we know we can't get it done otherwise. Lets focus on winning the war; this battle is already lost.
Here's why we might be able to win with this approach: Current members might support this for their own self-interest
Those in office now would actually gain even more lifetime power because the new guys would only be "Temps" - as originally intended by our constitution. The old guard would have seniority for chairmanships, influence, and power brokering. Since they could be ousted only by vote, they would become stronger and stronger (just like now), but even more so because they would encounter less competition from those new ones coming in. This advantage would be obvious to them. They would likely support increasing their own power this way because they could continually be re-elected and gain more and more influence, which is in accord with their own personal self-interested goal.
Also, lets face it: current congressmen care about as much for the incoming freshmen they don't even yet know, haven't met, from states they never visit, as they do about us - ZERO. They care about themselves their families, their power and influence. By grandfathering them, we are not attempting to threaten their livelihood at all. We are augmenting it - temporarily.
Our advantage is that the newly acquired power the old guard may wield would only be temporary to the individual, not the body politic. Once they are gone there would be no up-and-coming lifelong politician to whom to pass the baton of everlasting influence and domination.
Without the resulting benefits of unlimited re-election, new legislators would know that they would have to pay their share of the cost of their votes just as do we. Under the current unrestrained system, they either bring home the pork, or risk the wrath of slighted voters and the support of their miffed colleagues. Term-limited legislators wouldn't likely engage in these shenanigans because it would no longer be in their personal self-interest to do so. In fact, not only would it no longer directly benefit them, it would hurt them almost as much as it does us. They would truly be one of us again - mostly.
It is not selfish to want to protect and provide for one's own family. It is normal behavior. We can count on people to act this way; it is human nature. Let's stop denying it, accept it, honor it, use it - and win with it.
The other argument from constituents: - "We like our guy."
Many voters would not support term limits because although they realize congressmen in general have too much power, and are a major problem, but - their own guy brings the bacon back home to them. He isn't such a bad guy. They may have even shook his hand, or heard him speak live. It is those other rascals who take their hard earned tax dollars and deliver it to another part of the country to those rotten layabouts and illegal aliens who don't even pay taxes. Those guys are the problem. They are the ones who have to go, not our guy. They may argue that term limits might leave them at a disadvantage because they believe that their representative is so good for them. It is likely that many voters would not support limits unless it did not affect their own congressman.
"Term limits? - but we can keep our guy as long as we want? Great!"
Fine, - continue voting for your guy until he loses. He will eventually either lose, die, or retire a multi-millionaire and someone new will be a temp on level ground with the other temps.
The simple proposal again:
Amendment 28 to Section 2 of United States Constitution:
"United States Congressional members in the House of Representatives may be elected no more than 3 times to two-year terms, nor may he (she) serve more than 8 years under any circumstances. Congressmen currently serving as of the date of passage of this amendment are fully exempted from these limits."
That's it.
Sure, one six year term in the House of Representatives would be better. When congressmen have to run for re-election every two years it may take a lot of time away from work. The amendment should be simple. Rather than argue to modify two items, term length and overall limit to access to the national trough, one change is probably easier to implement. Limit only. Congressmen currently serving are not affected by the limits and so can pillage the treasury until they retire - but it will be more difficult than even they think.
Many would like to add senatorial limits too, as would I. - but one battle at a time. Since all bills must go thorough the House of Representatives, senators can't really do much without the House anyway. The congressmen in the House will eventually work to take care of limits on senators because they know they can't stay there forever and so will want to move up to become senators when their own terms expire. Let them start the senate term limit discussion. They very likely will call for it themselves because it will benefit them to do so. Let them worry about getting the senators to agree.
Next: Human Nature Will Win