Careerism in Congress

As a career, a seat in Congress (or in any elective body) becomes a conflict of interest.

An incumbent who is seeking reelection cannot freely vote his conscience, or his principles, for fear that he is going to offend some slice of the electorate, and therefore reduce his chances of reelection.

Obviously, one way to correct this problem is to reduce or eliminate the option for reelection. In other words, establish either one or two term limits on all offices in government.

In all the cacophony among the pundits, editorialists, and bloggers about the reasons for the Democratic sweep in 2006, nowhere does anyone address the the most obvious - that the bulk of the failings of our American electoral system arise out of the trend toward careerism and tenure in the body politic, particularly in Congress.

No one has stood up and yelled “It’s about reelections (not issues), stupid!”

No one seems to recognize that, in their desperate struggle to hold on to their extremely ‘cushy’ jobs, career politicians will vote, not on the principle or merit of the issues, but on their ‘reelection odds’ only.

Those that do it successfully, go on to lifelong tenure (e.g. Byrd, Kennedy, Stevens, Domenici, et al). Those who try to hold to principle invariably serve very short terms.

In other words, if your first concern is reelection, rather than the what is best for the country, you reap the rewards of a long tenure.  Is this any way to run a country?

The fundamental reason we need Congressional Term Limits is simply that Congress is no longer doing its job. Instead, it is working very hard at keeping its job.

Of the many hot issues actually ‘debated’ by Congress and passed, most have been so chewed up, amended, and emasculated, that they are often not worth the paper they are written on. Congress will do anything it can to avoid making clear-cut decisions to get good legislation, in order not to offend or lose the voters they need for reelection.

Some people would say that’s the way a democracy works, and to some degree that is true. However, I take issue with that superficial way of looking at what is actually happening. Rather, I believe that what we are seeing is the result of the emergence of a Congressional class which is overwhelmingly committed to reelection first, all other considerations, especially good governance, last. This is true on both sides of the aisle.

The best evidence of this is the fact that in two recent (‘02, ‘04) elections, Congressional incumbents won reelection at a 99% rate. Before 50 years ago, that rate was about 50-60%. Do you really believe that 99% of incumbents deserved reelection ? In two successive elections?

The ‘06 election was merely a bump in the road. Things have not changed. A great majority of the really long termers survived. They always will, thanks to gerrymandered districts, name recognition, and other incumbent advantages. We still have a virtually permanent Congress.

How this has come about can be understood by examining Congressional voting patterns on the major issues in our current political environment, all of which are now routine, and all of which have arisen during the last part of the 20th century, as Congress has learned how to ‘game the system’.

For example, and the following applies to both sides of the aisle :

•They don’t reform Soc Sec to get personal retirement accounts. They might lose voters for reelection

•They don’t reform health care to get personal medical accounts. They might lose voters for reelection

•They don’t stop earmarks, because they want to spend federal money (for local votes) for reelection

•They don’t vote school choice, because they want teacher’s union money for reelection

•They don’t vote for tort reform, because they want lawyer money for reelection

•They don’t vote for right-to-work, because they want union money for reelection

•They don’t want computer neutral redistricting, because they want safe seats for reelection

•They don’t deregulate campaign financing with instant disclosure, because they lose contributors for reelection

•They won’t lower taxes, because they won’t be able to vote irresponsible ‘goodies’ for reelection

•They won’t reduce the size of government, because that would reduce their control of voters for reelection

•Last, but not least, Congressional office has become a livelihood, which is in itself, a conflict of interest, because incumbents become more interested in holding on to the job than passing good legislation. Unlimited reelections should not be allowed.

It is time for a Congressional Term Limits Amendment !

Nelson Lee Walker
tenurecorrupts.com