Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York State has begun his fifth decade in public office. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah has been in Washington, D.C., since 1977. Closer to home, U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson is approaching two decades in the nation’s capital.
And last November, we had one Hinds County supervisor, George Smith—who had served 30 years in office—lose his seat to Jackson’s Ward 3 Councilman Kenneth Stokes, who had already served on City Council for the better part of 20 years himself.
In my opinion, none of these scenarios are good for the people charged with voting public servants into office. It may seem ambitious, but I think every publicly elected position should come with term limits—hard term limits.
Would we have the gridlock that we have in Congress if those ladies and gentlemen knew that their time was limited? Wouldn’t term limits encourage a more immediate need to leave a lasting legacy in the history books?
I believe that, most importantly, term limits would hinder the ability of special interests—and their money—to entice officials over the long run.
I’m not suggesting that we replace these longstanding politicos with just anyone. Nor am I saying that we should arbitrarily remove them simply to put younger people in their seats. And it’s not as easy as just saying, “When the constituents are ready for him or her to go, the people’s vote will make that decision.”
Voters become enamored with their elected representatives, at whatever level he or she may be on. And that makes it much easier for everyone to become complacent.
Isn’t eight years plenty of time in office? Isn’t 20 years too long?
It’s about time we started putting some things into play to hold our politicians more accountable to us, the voters. I believe term limits are one way to begin. We have many capable people primed to lead, and they deserve a shot. Demographics change. Population changes. But most glaringly, problems change, and old approaches and solutions don’t work. I find it difficult to believe, for example, that someone who has been in office since the 1970s or ’80s can connect with this technological age, despite their best efforts.
Change is not a word a lot of people are comfortable with, especially in the South. But if you’re frustrated with partisan politics, perhaps you should see fit to just send a message to those in power—by sending them home.
Term limits anyone?
And that’s the truth … shonuff.
Previous Comments
I agree that there needs to be term limits but if you don’t cultivate people to step in when these terms are up what difference will it make? Experience, in a lot of cases, matters. If you only have ideas and goals and no plans to achieve them or can’t communicate it, you won’t beat an incumbent. People will then vote for what they know and who they are comfortable with.
#334 | Author: Knowledge06 | Date: Jul 11 2012
Thats the key. Its as much about not letting voters get comfortable and complacent as it is to keep elected officials from getting comfortable. Were all of Bennie thompson’s opponents inexpereienced or unqualified? doubt it. Same For Rangel or Schumer. But because folks grow more disenfranchised the more they stay at home..which benefits incumbents greatly. So they sit in office, get the perks, lay low and off the radar, dont stir things up, all just to remain safe come election time…ultimately nothing gets done..ever. We HAVE to put some pressure on them. Im no longer confident that voters “will send them home” because Ive seen in too many cases where they havent
#336 | Author: kamikaze | Date: Jul 11 2012
I’ve never been for term limits. Even if there were, I don’t think things really change. We keep hearing every year that things will be different, but they never do. Having said that, I would be in favor of having all elections non-partisan (even though I am a Democrat). This way, it would put the burden on people to research their candidates’ records or stances rather than see if said candidates have a D or R behind their names.
#338 | Author: goldeneagle97 | Date: Jul 11 2012
I’m not a term-limits fan, either. It tends to be a Bandaid solution to much bigger issues. And most people want them just because they don’t like the candidates in office. They can bite you in the butt when the alternatives are much worse than the incumbent. Because the pros and cons balance out, I go with the non-regulation of what people want option.
#339 | Author: Donna Ladd | Date: Jul 11 2012
Thats the thing GE. Nothing ever gets done because they know all they have to do is give the appearance of work. The aim is not to “DO” anything but to get re-elected and store more campaign funds. So why try? We keep hearing the same things because we have grown to accept it
#341 | Author: kamikaze | Date: Jul 11 2012
Well to the “candidates they dont like” comment…Id say I wished Bill Clinton could STILL be Pres. And if not for term limits I think its feasible that he could still be in Ofc. Why is 8 yrs good for Presidents but not other Elected Officials? Why in the world do we have to wait for Supreme Court Justices to die or retire before they are replaced? Im sorry, but there are instances like Rangels, or Thompsons, or even Stokes in Ward 3 where you lose faith in the voters abilities to vote in their best interest.
#345 | Author: kamikaze | Date: Jul 11 2012
