Periodically, people who are tired of the same old problems in government and entrenched elected officials raise calls for imposing limits on their terms in office. Those efforts have gone from the most local — Brownsville and other cities in the Rio Grande Valley and beyond limit city commissioners’ service — to the highest levels of government — our Constitution restrict presidential terms.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is the latest to champion the idea; he has filed a bill that would seek a constitutional amendment that would limit congressional service to 12 years in the Senate and six years in the House. Theoretically, a person could still squeeze out 18 years on Capitol Hill by serving the maximum three two-year terms in the House and two six-year terms in the Senate.
“Term limits are critical to fixing what’s wrong with Washington, D.C.,” Cruz stated in a news release announcing the bill. “The Founding Fathers envisioned a government of citizen legislators who would serve for a few years and return home, not a government run by a small group of special interests and lifelong, permanently entrenched politicians who prey upon the brokenness of Washington to govern in a manner that is totally unaccountable to the American people.”
Of course, Cruz doesn’t include himself among those entrenched politicians who are the problem and he isn’t about to set the example for putting his beliefs into action. He’s currently running for his third term and his bill would grandfather him and other current Congress members; the clock for them wouldn’t begin until the first election after the amendment would take effect. His apparent targets are Democrats such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has held her seat for 31 years; Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who has served for 36 years; and President Joe Biden, who has spent the past 50 years in Congress or the White House, except for the four years Donald Trump was in office.
Nor can we be sure of the founders’ intent. Our first president, George Washington, chose to limit his service to two terms, against widespread calls — including from many of those who drafted the Constitution — that he continue serving. Presidential terms weren’t limited until 1951, after Franklin Roosevelt had been elected four times.
The issue surely spurs ambivalence among many people, who believe people shouldn’t lose the services of a good, honest and competent official to term limits. Logically, active, informed voters would best serve their communities by keeping the good officials and voting out the bad ones.
We all know, however, that reality is quite different. Far too many people are able to make careers out of holding political positions, whether or not they actually do a good job.
Moreover, in order to pass the bill must be supported by the very career politicians who would lose their jobs to term limits. Historically, they have actually done more to protect themselves by making it harder to challenge their incumbency.
Ultimately, those who believe term limits are necessary should do their part to make it happen — by voting, and encouraging others to do so.
