A few thoughts before we impose term limits

As I look through the many repetitive tropes found on social media, I frequently see populist opinions about term limits. There’s no question that folks overwhelmingly favor them, but I feel obligated to take the contrarian view of that matter.

Having been exposed to some of the mechanisms of government, and having grown up in the household of civil servants, I am informed by a couple of long-held observations. First, lobbyists have no term limits, and they augment the thin staff of legislators, particularly those of the state and lower-level offices. Second, accusations of a “deep state” may sometimes be exaggerated, but they are by no means mythical. Civil servants are, at all levels, well-entrenched and able to affect (or obstruct) the actions and policies of well-meaning, duly elected representatives.

As much as we might be frustrated by career politicians, I see little value in ceding leadership to the learning curves of lobbyists and career bureaucrats over democratically elected officials. Before we hop on the populist train, let’s consider that self-governance comes with a learning curve. It also seems obvious to me that our primary rival on the national scene, China, is able to make long-term plans and maintain a long-term agenda without changing leadership (and philosophy) every four-to-eight years. That alone gives them an upper hand.

I have tried to hold these beliefs to myself over the years. I understand that I’m not in the majority on these issues and don’t wish to antagonize well-meaning people, but as I watched the parade of G-7 photo opportunities this week, it struck me once again that our system of temporary government not only imposes limitations on our ability to plan and implement policy, but it’s also out of step with the major western systems of democracy.

Let’s start with the easy one: Boris Johnson has only been Prime Minister since 2019, but he was shadowed at this week’s festivities by Queen Elizabeth II who has been the ceremonial head of Great Britain since 1952. That’s almost 70 years of continuity.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has been in office since 2005. Her leadership began during the George W. Bush administration and she has remained through the subsequent presidencies of Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and now, Joe Biden. She has continuity. She has longevity.

Like our current President, Mario Draghi of Italy has only been Prime Minister since 2021, but his political resume extends well beyond that. His experience in the Italian government extends back into the 1980s. Italian President Sergio Mattarella has been in office since 2015.

Yoshihide Suga of Japan has only been Prime Minister since 2020, but he had served under Shinzo Abe since 2012 and as a Minister for Internal affairs since 2006. He’s no rookie.

Emmanuel Macron of France and Justin Trudeau of Canada are the young guys on the team. Macron has only held office since 2017 and Trudeau since 2015, but let’s not forget that Trudeau hails from a political dynasty dating back to the 1960s.

Last, let’s not forget that the current G-7 was the G-8 until Russia was disinvited after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Vladimir Putin has been in office since 1999 and served under Boris Yeltsin from 1996. He’s the head of a failed state, yet he’s a rough-and-tumble guy who understands the importance of longevity and If folks in Mother Russia are thinking about term limits for him, my guess is that they keep it to themselves.

As we look at the top-tier diplomats and public servants, we see that they are more often than not, well-experienced, battle-hardened players. Why then should we restrict our entry-level State Senators and Congressional Representatives to a limited number of terms? I know people feel strongly about this and I’m swimming against the tide, but let’s give it some serious thought before we cede control of our local governments to non-elected dictators and manipulators.