Term limits: Why small rural states like Mississippi lose when seniority is forced out

• Columnist Sid Salter says the next time someone says term limits are the answer, remember it might sound like a clever way to “drain the swamp,” but it really drowns Mississippi’s voice in a more bottomless swamp.

Every few years, somebody in Washington dusts off the old idea of congressional term limits and holds it up like a silver bullet that’ll fix everything wrong with American politics. The pitch sounds good: throw the bums out, stop career politicians, and make Congress more like “real America.”

But down here in Mississippi—and in other small, rural states—that kind of reform would do us more harm than good. The truth is, term limits might sound like a clean-up act, but in practice, they’d shift power away from the places that already fight to be heard and hand it to the big coastal states that already run most of the show.

Let’s start with how Congress really works. It’s not a job you master overnight. There’s a steep learning curve — committee rules, the appropriations maze, and how to move a bill without getting buried in red tape. Seniority matters. It’s how our smaller states punch above their weight.

When Mississippi has a senior senator or representative sitting on Appropriations or Agriculture, this state gets noticed. Federal dollars flow, local projects get funded, and our priorities — like rural hospitals and farm policy—don’t get lost in the noise of what larger delegations from New York or California want.

Now imagine term limits cutting that experience off at the knees. Every few years, we’d be starting over — rookie lawmakers trying to learn the ropes while seasoned lobbyists and federal bureaucrats, who don’t face any term limits, keep right on running their show. Who wins that deal? Not Mississippi.

The idea that term limits weaken the “Washington establishment” is a nice talking point, but the reality is the opposite. They strengthen it. When you kick out members who’ve finally learned how to do the job, you hand even more influence to the permanent government — the staffers, lobbyists, and career bureaucrats who never leave.

And that’s the second big problem: term limits don’t level the playing field between big and small states — they tilt it. Large states like California and New York have deep benches of political talent and donor networks ready to step in when a senator or representative moves on. They can rotate people through those seats without missing a beat. Mississippi often can’t.

If you force them out every few years, we lose not just experience but also clout inside their own parties. That’s a real problem when committee assignments and leadership roles depend on seniority and relationships. Mississippi’s influence would shrink, and the coastal states—where the money and media already live — would fill the vacuum.

So, who’s really pushing for term limits? A lot of national groups and billionaires love the idea because it keeps Congress weak and keeps the public angry. It’s easier to sell “throw them all out” than it is to fix the hard stuff—like campaign finance reform or gerrymandering.

And make no mistake, the real power isn’t with some long-serving legislator from Mississippi—it’s with the permanent political infrastructure in Washington and the financial backers who can outlast any elected official. When you cap lawmakers’ time in office, you’re not throwing out the establishment; you’re making it more permanent.

Now, none of this means Congress doesn’t need reform. Voters are right to be frustrated. There’s gridlock, grandstanding, and too many politicians who forget who sent them there. But the cure isn’t to throw away experience and seniority — it’s to demand accountability. Fair redistricting, stronger ethics laws, and more transparency about who’s funding what would go a long way toward addressing term limits ever could.

For Mississippi, seniority has never been a dirty word — it’s been our ticket to the table. From Jamie Whitten to Sonny Montgomery to Thad Cochran, we’ve seen what long service can do for a small state that knows how to use it. Term limits would toss that advantage right out the window and leave us at the mercy of bigger states that don’t need to start over every election cycle.

The next time someone says term limits are the answer, remember it might sound like a clever way to “drain the swamp,” but it really drowns Mississippi’s voice in a more bottomless swamp.