A one-sided argument is no argument at all.

I am working on my senior capstone project, as it is called here at the School for Professional and Continuing Studies of the large university in the northeast where I study and work. My paper is focusing on the effect and efficacy of term limits on the professionalization of legislatures. In the statement of my research problem, I wanted to present the argument put forth by supporters of term limits. Their argument is based on the belief that citizen legislators are preferable to professional politicians. I went to the web site for US Term Limits, the most prominent term limit advocacy group, to find some kind of explanation of their position. I found a quote from Benjamin Franklin, a one sentence mission statement and many, many news articles about the fight to preserve term limits where they have been passed.

This is typical of organizations dedicated to one specific cause. So much effort goes into promoting the fight that the reason for the fight never gets explained clearly. The assumption is that the argument is so self evident that there is no need to clarify it. When pressed for an answer, many supporters of causes like this get trapped in circular logic. "Unlimited terms are bad because they allow people to hold office indefinitely, and that's bad so we should have term limits." I can tell you that term limits could help prevent elected office holders from becoming entrenched in their positions and considering and enacting legislation based on a narrow point of view. But I could also tell you that the activity of drafting, considering, reviewing and revising legislation is a complex process that might very well benefit from the input of experienced legislators. What I cannot seem to find on US Term Limits is a researched, logically supported examination of the process of legislative professionalization and the drawbacks to the end result of that process.

My point of view is that term limits are unnecessary and redundant. Terms are already limited, and if citizens are not happy with an elected office holder, then they should stand for election against them. Yes, that is a lot of work. Yes, a well-connected politician might be difficult to defeat. It is too common for people to rail against "the politicians" and "the government" as if there is some separate ruling class that needs to be overthrown. The term limit argument appears to contradict itself. On the one hand, it says that getting elected is so difficult that it is virtually impossible to get someone out of office once they are in. On the other hand it proposes that the best protection for democracy is to force turnover and compel more people to run for office. I would think the most likely outcome of term limits would be greater party control over candidate selection. If candidates are going to be needed for every office every eight years, the party is going to get more involved in grooming and maintaining a candidate pool. A classic example of this scenario would be the story of George Wallace in Alabama. That state had gubernatorial term limits that stipulated no person could serve more than two consecutive terms. So when Wallace's second term was coming to a close, his wife ran for election. And won. She served a term, and George ran again. And won again. If people aren't interested in working for a change in government, there won't be a change.