Term Limits

I was reading this article in the Washington Monthly about Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake (R) this morning. There are so many interesting things to discuss about the article, but I decided that the one I really wanted to talk a little about this morning appeared near the bottom of the article and is, right now, a little less of a mainstream issue than some of the other things.

When he was first elected in 2000, Flake made a pledge to serve no more than 3 terms in the House. Here we are in 2006, nearing the end of his third term, and Flake is running for re-election. When asked why he isn't honoring his pledge, Flake says that the movement for term limits in Congress has simply run out of steam.

There are a couple of important points here. I'll start with my disdain for term limits in the first place, at any level. On a blog belonging to one of my friends, I was recently accused of being undemocratic. My opposition to term limits, however, stems from my belief in democracy. I don't think there is any reason to prevent people from electing whomsoever they please. Term limits are designed to inject new blood into the system, but what if the people don't want new blood? I hear all sorts of things about the institutional advantages of incumbency and how the only way to combat it is through term limits, but I think that's absurd. Change the way elections are run (and we could have a very long discussion on that, I'm sure) and you will eliminate the artificial incumbency advantage. The point is that, even with the advantages of incumbency, when people truly want change they can get it. Not every incumbent wins, and that's important. I just don't believe that a Congressman who is doing his or her job should be forced to retire because of term limits. The will of the people, not the calendar, should determine who is serving in Congress.

The second point I want to make, however, cuts against Congressman Flake. When he was initially elected, part of the appeal was presumably his promise to term-limit himself. People have the right to change their mind, yes. And the people have the option of electing someone else if they feel that this was a particularly egregious promise to break. I'm fine with that mechanism operating, and don't particularly care whether Flake is re-elected. But Congressman Flake should never have made that promise in the first place. It was made out of political expediency, to try to gain traction with a certain set of voters. Further, unless there is a substantial reason to break that kind of direct promise to the voters, Flake should honor it. He made the deal with the devil, and it's time for the payment to come due.

The moral of the story? If you're running for Congress, don't make promises you can't keep, and never, ever tell anyone that you plan on serving for only 3 terms.