- Hunter Estes says term limits ensure that power is constantly returned to the hands of the people, where it belongs, rather than being allowed to calcify in the grip of a select few.
Any time I have the chance to talk politics with fellow Mississippians, there is almost always one issue that has near-unanimous support. No matter one’s party or political preferences, term limits are robustly and dramatically supported by the majority of Mississippians.
The polls have affirmed this anecdotal experience of mine. I think it’s because, unfortunately, many politicians, like milk, go bad after a while. That’s why every seat in Jackson should come with an expiration date.
Term limits empower Mississippians and undermine career politicians. There should be no permanent residents at our Capitol. We should seek a system that encourages civilian leaders rather than a permanent ruling class. Term limits are one way to do exactly that.
The fact is that the holding of a public office should be a public service, not a career. Term limits provide an additional check on power and emphasize the duty involved in accepting a position.
Now, Sid Salter recently wrote a piece criticizing the latest push for term limits. He argued that Mississippians have rejected them. His proof for this is two close and politically charged votes from the 1990s.
However, this is hardly evidence that today’s voters would not vote in a way similar to what opinion polls show on this issue (complete and overwhelming support for term limits). It’s also worth noting that political dynamics in the state have changed just a little bit since 1999, when the state elected a Democrat governor.
In fact, a recent poll found that only 15% of Mississippians oppose term limits on members of Congress. Let the people vote again, and I think the outcome would be clear and decisive.
Salter’s reasoning for opposition essentially boils down to the fact that politicians already have a type of term limits, through the power of the vote. But that argument runs aground quickly.
First, it ignores the reality of the political capacity to consolidate power, money, and connections in a manner that becomes increasingly difficult for even the most well-supported opponents to overcome. That’s because incumbents enjoy massive advantages through fundraising, name recognition, and insider connections. It’s incredibly difficult to get even an unpopular politician out of office. For these reasons, it’s no surprise that incumbent politicians win approximately 94% of the time.
Second, one could make the same argument against term limits for the office of the president or the governor, but term limits for those offices are widely accepted and well-established already. Because it was clearly recognized that it is good for the country and the state to limit the capability of one political actor to establish entrenched executive authority over time. Why should we not also limit other state offices and local legislative positions in the same manner?
It is good for the country to frequently get new blood into office. Unchallenged politicians have a disappointing tendency to become stale state actors. Term limits help facilitate fresh eyes and fresh ideas in the legislature and ensure good ideas aren’t blocked just because a senior legislator has controlled a committee for a decade, for example.
Term limits also encourage focus on action over reelection. A politician seeking to establish a seemingly endless occupation of office (as too many tragically do) will have a natural tendency to do whatever is safest rather than what is right. The message for some becomes clear: Don’t rock the boat. Go along to get along. Stay in office as long as you want.
There’s also nothing that assists lobbyists and special interests more than being able to build relationships with politicians over years or even decades. Term limits help to interrupt those relationships and keep politicians focused on the only interest that matters – that of their constituents.
Personally, I’d like our legislators to be held to the fire a bit more. Upon assuming office, they should know that their time is already limited. So, if they aim to make an impact or leave a legacy, they’d better start running. When it comes to their careers in public office, I’d prefer my politicians to be focused on sprinting for 200 meters rather than trying to walk out a marathon. And the vast majority of Mississippians agree with me.
Ultimately, term limits ensure that power is constantly returned to the hands of the people, where it belongs, rather than being allowed to calcify in the grip of a select few.
At the end of the day, they are a reminder that power is borrowed and must be consistently returned to the people.
There is no room in this country for the creation of a permanent political class, and every opportunity possible should be taken to reject that concept. Mississippi legislators should take the bold, but necessary, action to restrict their own power and limit their own time in office through term limits.
Hunter Estes
