Why Democrats Should Embrace Term Limits

An idea to shake up the system

Welcome to Message Box Mailbag #4. Greetings from CrookedCon in Washington, DC — an incredible gathering of the smartest people and least annoying politicians in the pro-democracy movement

Finally, a great week to be a Democrat. Hope everyone is still enjoying the great wins from Tuesday night.

As a reminder, these will come every Saturday as a special feature for paid subscribers. Subscribe today to read these posts and ask anything you want.

Don’t forget to post your questions for next week’s mailbag in the comments section of this post.

---

Joyce Felton

My question: What do you think about term limits? I’m fine with them for the Supreme Court and the President. I’m opposed to them for congressional representatives. I think the experience and knowledge, as well as the seniority they gain, serves us all well. I believe it insulates us, at least somewhat, from the influence of lobbyists. I can never seem to convince my friends that we’re giving away our power with term limits. I’d love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

Answer

For a long time, I opposed term limits for the very reason you cite. There is meaningful anecdotal evidence that in state legislatures with term limits, lobbyists have outsized influence. They are able to exploit the inexperience of the members and often end up writing legislation.

However, in recent years, I have changed my position for two reasons. First, polarization and gerrymandering mean that more than 90% of incumbents return to Congress every cycle. The vast majority face no real challenge. Congress has essentially become a lifetime appointment. Dianne Feinstein died in office, and Adam Schiff, who replaced her, could also stay in that seat until he dies. This has created a severe gerontocracy problem.