This commentary is by John Bossange of Burlington, a retired middle school principal who now volunteers on a number of nonprofit boards in the Burlington area.
Every time I watch or listen to the leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate point their fingers at the other side and cast blame for the polarization, a stalemate or a lack of action, I can’t help but think of how long they have been at each other’s throats, arguing with each other.
The news from Capitol Hill during the past week says it all.
Take a look at how long both Republican and Democratic leaders have been facing off. When Nancy Pelosi (34 years) and Chuck Schumer (22 years) engage with Mitch McConnell (36 years) or Don Young (48 years), or when Patrick Leahy (46 years) and Chuck Grassley (40 years) battle with Richard Shelby (34 years) and Susan Collins (24 years), the years of hostilities make the art of governing virtually impossible.
For most, it’s been decades’ worth of grudges, hurt feelings, and too many bitter memories. No wonder we are at a virtual standstill on just about every piece of legislation proposed by either party.
Although not the perfect answer, mandatory term limits — two six-year terms for a U.S. senator (12 years) and three two-year terms for a U.S. House representative (six years) — will go a long way toward unlocking the dysfunction in Congress.
Unlike campaign finance reform, where Citizens United has been protected by the Supreme Court under the “free speech” clause, establishing term limits is not protected by any constitutional language, and would need only a process to add term-limit definition to the existing language in Article 1, Sections 3 and 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
We need to do this now because our ability to govern cannot continue to be influenced by campaign money given to the same candidates decade after decade, where lobbyists solidify their relationships and influence.
We need new, younger faces with fresh ideas, and fewer older members who believe they have a lifetime appointment and are not in temporary service to our nation. We need less time for extremism and polarization to grow between senior leaders into the negative force it is now. We need members of Congress to show more independence and courage and not be consumed with pleasing their base to get reelected over the decades.
Finally, we need to see the end of the seniority system that allows those who have served the longest to divide up the spoils.
Here in Vermont, our current representatives total 93 years of service in Congress (Leahy 49 years, Sanders 30 years, Welsh 14 years). Under the present system of seniority, that has worked well for Vermont, but at some time the worm will turn and our congressional delegation will be at the end of the feeding trough.
The archaic seniority system should be replaced by a party caucus system that honors passion, intelligence and competence. Leadership assigned by merit needs to become the norm so those new, younger voices on both sides of the aisle will be more likely to tackle complex issues through compromise, unencumbered by entrenched special interests and long histories of animosity.
It is true that when Newt Gingrich divided up the House with his “Contract for America” in 1994, he became the architect of today’s polarized Congress. That one event set the stage for our representatives to not reach across the aisle and work together.
The fact that members of the House and Senate have always been able to view their work as a career and lead by seniority has taken the tragic impact of Gingrich’s political negligence and created hostilities where now no one seeks compromise. The Contract for America gave birth to the present bunker mentality in D.C., and now, with the absence of campaign finance reform combined with the tradition of unlimited years in Congress, we are paying a steep price for our state of dysfunction.
Making this change to term limits will not come from the existing members of Congress. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them? But to save America’s democracy, it must be done, and there is a pathway to achieve this — although making this change will not be easy.
Specifically, the U.S. Constitution allows citizens to work with their state’s legislators to convince them of the importance of term limits to protect our ability to govern with reason and to sustain our democracy. When 33 of the 50 state legislatures vote in favor of the language additions in those key sections of the Constitution, that would make the ratification of term limits a permanent part of our Constitution and would go a long way toward eliminating the cancer that is eating away at our nation’s soul.
Let’s begin that process here in Vermont and see how far it goes. We know that real change often occurs from the bottom up, and in our small state, we can more easily work directly with our state representatives. A vote here for term limits for all members in the U.S. Congress would send a powerful message to other states and Washington, D.C.
Many of us have had it with beltway politics. With a congressional approval rating of just 19%, I believe there would be great interest and enthusiasm for enacting term limits in the U.S. Constitution. I am making phone calls to my state representatives in Montpelier this week. How about you?
