Dr. Samuel B. Hoff, a George Washington Distinguished Professor Emeritus and the internship director at Delaware State University, served in three congressional staff posts between 1978-86.
It is certainly a temptation to term-limit members of Congress, as party polarization has increased and productivity has decreased. However, that was not the view of the Constitution’s framers nor a current solution to our toxic politics. This Opinion is in response to Dr. Michael Katz’s Feb. 24 Daily State News piece supporting such limits (“Let’s get serious about Congress term limits”).
First, it is strange that Dr. Katz’s article appears word for word elsewhere and also by another state chair of the U.S. Term Limits group. This gives the impression that the piece was handed down by the national organization for distribution, leading one to question Dr. Katz’s personal knowledge, if not commitment, toward what he is advocating for.
Next, Dr. Katz tries to impress us with statistics, claiming that the RMG Research polling group found that “81% of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, support these limits.” Here, I am not sure which poll Dr. Katz is referring to. The latest online story regarding that organization reveals that a poll conducted in January was only of Texas voters, and it found less support than 81% and had a sample error greater than 4%.
With much fanfare, Dr. Katz tells the reader that Feb. 27 had been designated National Term Limits Day. Great, put that on the calendar alongside National Small Dog Day, Pokémon Day, National Retro Day, National Strawberry Day, International Polar Bear Day, National Kahlúa Day and — because the date matched the last Thursday in February this year — National Toast Day and National Chili Day. You tell me which will get more attention.
Dr. Katz’s rebooted article then gets really serious by mentioning names. He condemns the necessity of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s extended tenure, but trumpets what he says are Harry Truman’s views about term limits. God love Harry, but he won’t move past Ike in the presidential greatness rankings with that position. Dr. Katz is disappointed that ensuing chief executives did not follow the “tradition established by George Washington.” That is a radical mischaracterization of George Washington’s views. From his disgust at the lack of an executive in the Articles of Confederation, to his dismay about the weakness of state governors after the Revolution, to his chairing of the constitutional convention, to his quiet support for Alexander Hamilton’s strong defense of unlimited service but frequent elections for the president in “The Federalist Papers,” G.W. opposed mandating what he considered an act of humility.
That the Republican majority in Congress in 1947 chose to propose term limits for the president was a mistake then, just as the concept of term limits is today, and I am sure any current GOP member of Congress among the 151 who Dr. Katz says currently support limits would answer yes if asked by President Donald Trump whether he or she opposes them. So, using the 22nd Amendment to browbeat members of Congress into giving up their seats early won’t work. But let’s imagine they would say yes to term limits for themselves. Wait, they did: That was a plank of the 1994 Contract With America. The gimmick got the Republicans back in the House of Representatives majority for the first time in four decades, but the term limits idea was deep-sixed soon after. For fairness, any Democrat who asserts approval of term limits should be similarly called out for hypocrisy in an easy manner: a polygraph.
For backers of term limits, do not take any solace in Dr. Katz’s contention that we are near a constitutional amendment being proposed through the state convention method: No constitutional amendment has ever been successfully proposed through that method. Nor should it be on this issue. Acting on the momentary urge to punish members of Congress through term limits will rob the national legislature of people who have committed to service and know the ropes, leaving a void in policy expertise and parliamentary acumen.
Finally, term limits proponents always have the courts. Nada again: An ever-growing conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court turned back 23 states seeking to impose limits on Congress in 1995. What do these folks think will happen today with the supermajority tilt to the right?
On Oct. 2, 1992, I published my first opinion column for the then-Delaware State News on this topic. My views haven’t changed. Let the people decide.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
