Vermont Business Magazine The website “RealClearPolitics” reports that 76.3 percent of Americans disapprove of the job that the United States Congress is doing. It really doesn’t matter which political party controls Congress — the disapproval rating always remains high. Americans are fed up with Congress and how it conducts its business. They want change. But if the results of this upcoming election are similar to other elections, then nearly 96 percent of incumbent members of Congress will be re-elected. It’s unlikely that significant change will occur. After all, these are the same politicians that have perpetuated gridlock.
In fact, as our country’s problems mount, the political bickering and finger pointing will probably escalate, making it nearly impossible to reach compromises or solutions other than on a temporary basis. No one wishes to cede any political ground. This election cycle has exacerbated the partisan divide. Our national politics — and in many cases our state politics too — have degraded to the point where it isn’t enough to disagree with an opponent. Instead that opponent must be destroyed.
This frustration with Congress is driving most Americans to support term limits. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 74 percent of likely voters favored establishing term limits for all members of Congress. Just 13 percent were opposed, and 13 percent were undecided. Of course, incumbent politicians will often argue that term limits are unnecessary because an election can end a political career just as effectively as term limits. The counter to that argument is that incumbents, with their ability to raise large amounts of money, have an enormous advantage over challengers. Often challengers find themselves financially outgunned from the get-go, and rarely does an incumbent member of Congress lose a re-election bid.
Some political scientists will argue that federal term limits make it harder to tackle complex issues because members of Congress will lack experience. But there are two retorts to this argument. First, Congress seems unwilling nowadays to solve any complex problems; and second, if you set the number of years one can serve for a longer period of time — for example 12 years — you will have members with significant experience in Congress to tackle any complex problem; in fact, four more years of experience than any two-term president.
The U.S. Constitution would need to be amended to limit the number of terms a member of Congress can serve, and that is no easy task. First, an amendment requires a two-thirds super-majority vote of Congress. And then the amendment needs to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50).
Republican Scott Milne, who is challenging incumbent Sen. Patrick Leahy, has seized on the public’s support for term limits and also the dissatisfaction with Congress. But even if Milne is elected — and recent polls show him lagging far behind Leahy — he is only one voice in a Congress where few support limiting the number of years they may serve. Milne’s call for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits may be good politics, even well intended, but it’s unlikely to produce any real change. Only an organized effort with significant public support will force Congress, and ultimately state legislatures, to act.
Absent this organized groundswell of public support for term limits, it probably will be business as usual in Washington. To most Americans this should be disappointing, as well as disconcerting. What is disappointing is that politicians will continue to posture, constantly seek political advantage over one another, and little will get done. It should be disconcerting because Americans will continue to be angry and frustrated with Congress, and left unattended this anger and frustration will only grow more intense.
Mike Smith is the host of the radio program, “Open Mike with Mike Smith,” on WDEV 550 AM and 96.1, 96.5, 98.3 and 101.9 FM. He is also a political analyst for WCAX-TV and WVMT radio and is a regular contributor to Vermont Business Magazine, the Times Argus and Rutland Herald. He was secretary of administration and secretary of human services under former Gov. Jim Douglas.