When discussing with (just about) any voter in the United States one of the first things they’ll mention, as a top issue for them, is the idea of limiting terms for federal office. And to some degree that can be a simple solution for right now – “Two terms, that’s it”. But, as I will outline soon, this cant possibly be the end solution. The issue needs to be defined first. A firm believe of mine is that people (in generally) hear this idea and think it is a good idea overall - but, rarely can individuals tell you a problem in their life that would be solved by a limitation of a terms. Which just means they like the solution without a actual problem to show for it.

Even studies that show major favoritism towards term limits are extremely flawed. For example, one such study ask people of all ages “Would you like for a limitation to be put on how many times someone can run for a office position?” Almost all people said yes. But this is a question with many flaws. First and foremost: just because we want something doesn’t mean it is actually desirable. A key example of this concept is when you ask a 5 year old what they want for breakfast. They’ll almost always say something like “Cake” or “Ice Cream”. And while it is true that they want it, we also know it isn’t breakfast food AND no respecting parent would give their kid either of those two items for breakfast. And in the same energy, just because we want term limits doesn’t mean they’re a good idea – or in my argument that they’re well thought out ideas. In addition this study plants a seed. They don’t ask people open ended questions and go through the data. People are asked a specific question and lead to a solution that isn’t theirs in the first place, but rather a solution placed by someone trying to push a agenda. This is ultimately deceitful and not going to qualify for any kind of good study in my book.

In addition to the poor studies that skew public opinions, when people are asked if they like Congress and approve of it’s work – it is almost always a resounding “no”. Congresses approval rating hasn’t broken 25% in decades in the United States, but the average congressman gets a 60% or above from their own district. Which means people like their congressmen, but disapproved of other districts or states representatives. I like to extrapolate this out into a idea that basically goes “I want term limits for YOUR congressmen, but I don’t want a limit placed on MY congressmen.” Which is a fools game, and is an argument that I inevitably can’t agree with in the long term.

Just so I don’t seem like I am taking sides here, a key argument against term limits is this idea that “If I want to vote someone 50 years in a row I should be allowed to!” But, I can counter this argument easier than the others by saying “If you only have one good person to vote for in the span 50 years (almost 3 generations), maybe you deserve to be represented poorly anyways”.

So again getting back to my initial point – what is the problem? And this might not be so clear, even to people who think they understand the problem. The short answer is “career politicians”. The term career politicians, for those of you who aren’t familiar with it, is simply someone who has been a elected official for longer than anything else or someone (in my humble opinion) has been a elected official for at least a whole generation. And this comes along with a list of items that could easily be seen as both positive and negatives. So really quickly let’s make a Pros and Cons list for allowing career politicians:

In the Pros column we see bringing experience in working the systems, which is something clearly valuable. For example, Mitch McConnel being the experienced politician he is prevented his rivals, the Obama led Democrats, from pushing through a Supreme Court Justice the last year of Obama’s term to then turn around just 3 years later and proceed to PUSH through Trump’s last nominee - Justice Barrett. Somehow he lived through that political stunt and a large part of his base awarded him for that with another term! But along with that experience you see a major Quid-Pro-Quo from nearly ALL politicians when the COVID-19 Pandemic hit and they all basically handed over the world and all civilized nations to these massive pharmaceutical companies and just poured tax dollars into their pocket books, and most of us can’t help to wonder how the just over $1 million in direct campaign contributions (for about 20 years running) of Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, and others (along with countless amounts of indirect contributions) helped curb the image of these companies to our politicians.

Also you might notice how I put “Creates a large ‘Barrier to Entry’” in both columns, this was not a mistake. It is both a good idea that not just allow anyone to run for office, you do want to keep out the bad eggs and sometimes the demon you know is better than the devil you don’t. But in addition, it does keep normal people with some great ideas from being able to run. It’s a double edge sword that shouldn’t be ignored or you will cut your hand on it.

With this problem of career politicians, it has (especially recently) became even worse, by allowing people who were elected to then be hoisted into spots where they’re not elected (often times right as they realize they won’t be able to win their next election). For example, here is the list of people with positions in the Obama office and the position they carried before:

Once again, this isn’t an exhaustive list, but rather just the most well known. And once again, of this list of 6, only one would a reasonable person actually consider having a shot at their next bid. I could do one for President Biden, but one look at Kamala Harris, Merrick Garland, and Pete Buttigieg should say enough. This is the old adage of “failing up”. And keep in mind each and every one of these nominees were NOT elected. (You can make an argument for the Vice President’s, but I’ll reject it as you vote for the president and get whoever comes along).

Yes I’m going to use the scary word “Deep State”. This is a clear and prominent example of how people like Hillary Clinton, or Mike Pompeo become so unpopular that people legitimately vote/run them out of their seat – and then they’re kept around in positions that aren’t elected, clearly overstaying their due against the will of the voters. They’re like a pimple that you can’t get rid of no matter how hard you try to eject it from it’s stay. A secondary issue of this is it certainly feels like it circumvents the people in a government that is meant to be “by the people, for the people”, which causes a whole new form of frustration.

So I ask you, what would a standard ‘Term Limit’ provide now that the game is this “Deep State” of musical chairs? It is no longer about staying in one seat for 40 years then riding off in to the sunset. Instead, it is a game where you run around grabbing seats that you can sit in playing a game of hot potato before people figure out where you are and what you’re doing, while evading voters because of bad, failed, or poor policies/performance.

So, I’d like to offer a single solution that would (potentially) resolve all of our issues -

“No individual is allowed to hold a Federally elected or appointed position for longer than 10 collective years of their life.”

This one rule would prevent someone from running for their 3 terms in the US House, then jumping for a term in the Senate, and then potentially getting a cabinet spot for the next 8 years because their so special and did what the establishment in the party wanted. But then I ask what prevents them from running for President for 8 more years on top of that? That scenario turns into a 28 year career and they didn’t max out their Senate stay or their House stay based on the popular points of 4 terms in the US House, and 2 terms as US Senate.

Use George HW Bush as a clear example. He was a House Rep for 8 years, then was Ambassador to the UN, Chairman of the Republican Committee, and Director of the CIA for a span of 6 years. After all of that he went on to be Vice President for 8 years, and then ran as President for 4 additional years. He had slightly more than 30 year career out of this. And because of his name this sprang 2 of his son’s into the spot light causing a Bush to be a part of 7 of the last 11 Presidential races. Which is something no one really wants.

Some of the positives of this 10 year limitation are in no particular order:

1. This allows some people to always have 7, 8, 9 years of experience to lead a committee in the House. (or similar)

2. Ensures that any level of corruption either can’t last forever or at least can’t be as deeply rooted as a 30 year campaign career.

3. It also prevent lowering the barrier to entry to nothing, as you will still have long stays of some individuals

4. It can also create a backlog of fresh ideas and allow a “passing of the baton” to new voices.

5. Will help ensure that the name recognition is still a posibility

6. Prevents certain parts of the country to become soured to other parts because “Nancy Pelosi is always doing this to us” which causes an unnecessary rift just based on name recognition.

What this doesn’t prevent however is a Governor to run for President, or a State level legislator to run for a federal level position, which ensures they have some experience when jumping into that pool. (even new electors have some experience). Which really helps defeat this argument of us wanting experienced individuals, by allowing a more “natural” promotion of individuals.

The one negative I can say about this particular idea, which we see already with our Presidents over the past several years: the last year or so of their run, when they know there is no path after this – they tend to do terrible things that make all of voting Americans question their entire legacy. George W Bush bailing out the banks in 2008 (EESA) which is something he would have NEVER ran on (would have never gotten out of the primary) and really helped sour the water of independent middle class voters in the upcoming election. He did it because, well, “fuck-em what are they gonna do, vote me out?” And this attitude in year 8-10 will become more noticeable. Obama did very similar things in 2016 where he went on a record number of vacations and spied on the Trump campaign to help the Democratic party in the election that year.

But, this really just shows us the true colors of the individual – and given time I believe would be the exception not the rule. But this is something that should be CLOSELY monitored and revisited regularly. (Maybe a stronger court/justice system is a solution to this) A limitation of some kind is something a overwhelming majority of United States voters would agree is needed, the question is what is the correct limitation. And unfortunately I do not feel like a “simple” term limit is sufficient because it has all the bad points of both sides, and virtually no extra good points. But a life long limit on both elected and appointed positions, would help limit the negative aspects and when the right number of years is select can help ensure the positives are still included.