You need not look further than my constant use of the term “career politicians” to know that I am a fan of congressional term limits. I wasn’t always such a strong proponent of term limits, and I didn’t always view “career politicians” the way I do today. There used to be a time when the term could be synonymous with “dedicated public servant.”
I wouldn’t argue against the position that throughout our nation’s history, career politicians may have in fact been a good thing. Right now, with the problems and dysfunction our political system has, however, I contend that hasn’t been the case in recent years.
There are certainly disadvantages to congressional term limits, but I believe the advantages outweigh them right now. There is too little actual competition, too much stagnation of ideas, too much consolidation of power, and the political party machines are too entrenched. Term limits could change all of that..
I support a 12-year term limit for both the House and the Senate. In essence, Senators would be limited to two terms and Representatives to six. That somewhat aligns with the pace of new generations coming of age to vote, and it would be enough for any member of Congress to serve through at least two presidential administrations.
As a child growing up in rural Iowa, I heard the name Chuck Grassley a lot. Forty years later, as I’m now running for the U.S. Senate in South Dakota, I still do. He was first elected to the House when I was four, and to the Senate when I was ten. Has his 45 years (48, when his term ends) in the Senate delivered such profound change and policy wins for Iowa that couldn’t have been achieved by new blood taking his place 33 years ago? Iowans, you tell me.
While I was serving in the Air Force JAG Corps, it was standard for Airmen to move around a lot. (I averaged about two years per assignment.) That holds true across other branches of the military as well. Rotating military personnel so often helps ensure that everyone, no matter their rank, can gain and share a wealth of experience and perspectives throughout their service. I can definitively say that it did a lot of good for me to be stationed around the country and the world, from Wyoming to Louisiana to Japan to Qatar to Germany.
Regular folks in South Dakota don’t have a real voice in Washington. That’s why I’m running as an Independent, to cut through the two-party system by putting people over parties. If you can make a contribution to my campaign today, it would be instrumental in helping me do that. Thank you for your help.
Now, I’m not proposing a round-robin-style shuffling of Congress to different states (although it would be a funny idea), but rather the idea that new blood brings new ideas, and new ideas are the key to unlocking a vast potential in our representatives.
A big disadvantage of term limits is that they would impact how party leadership is determined. As someone running as an Independent who has rejected the labels of either party, I’m somewhat ambivalent, but I can at least acknowledge the point.
However, given how much criticism Leaders Thune (and McConnell before him), Johnson, Schumer, and Jeffries have gotten over the past few years, I reassert that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages here. The 12-year term limit idea would retain the value of seniority, while also ensuring a steady flow of new ideas.
My opponent, Senator Mike Rounds, has spent 30 years in South Dakota politics. From conversations I’ve had with regular folks around the state, all he has to show for it is dark money scandals, screwing over ranchers and farmers, and a lot of complaints about the mail. He’s had two terms to pursue his policy agenda in the Senate. Instead, he’s simply been a rubber stamp for the party agenda and Big Money corporate interests.
Regular folks agree. The overwhelming majority of Americans support term limits for Congress. A recent poll put me ahead of Mike Rounds 44% to 42% once folks heard that I support term limits, and 55% of South Dakotans said that it’s time for someone new to step up in the U.S. Senate.
Getting term limits passed will certainly be a challenge, but one that I would be uniquely positioned to face as South Dakota’s Independent Senator. Either party garnering my support for their agenda will have to compromise with me to do it, and the exchange will be putting my agenda on the table. That means term limits, getting money out of politics, and all the other reforms you can read about on my website and in other Substack articles.
I know term limits aren’t a perfect solution. Even so, with the problems our political system has today, we have to do something. My thoughts match that old aphorism: “Perfect is the enemy of good.” I imagine that one day, when the issues of our two-party system and dysfunctional politics have been resolved, term limits won’t be needed anymore.
Then, we may have politicians of a better nature who restore the meaning of “dedicated public servant” back to the word “career politician.”
Thank you for reading.
Brian L. Bengs, Lt Col (Ret)
Independent Candidate for U.S. Senate
The South Dakota Senate race is absolutely in play this year. However, if I’m going to overcome Mike Rounds’ Big Money backers, I need your help. Consider contributing to my Independent campaign to help me deliver real, common-sense change to South Dakotans and the nation. Thank you.
Col Bengs, I’ve been on the fence about term limits. They have obvious appeal, to remove dead weight, and, as you say, to make room for newer comers.
But I think there are two problems. One is that the more heavily monied sponsors of whoever is in Congress doesn’t really care who’s there. They’ll buy anyone, as long as they get what they pay for. You could argue that newcomers have a different kind and level of passion, and are less likely to be for sale. And you might be right.
Second, legislators have a career being on the take. And they might well not care whether they take from donors to campaigns, or via the revolving door. The latter could be resolved by legislating that no one who has served in Congress can be a lobbyist, for example, for 15 years. So they’ll have to find something else to do.
But the big problem remains private money in politics.
The problem isn’t so much term limits (which sound great but will probably actually increase corruption as politicians work to set up their new jobs with industry handouts). The problem is the lack of competitive elections. 85% of congressional seats are considered “safe” seats. That isn’t representative as then the party stalwarts end up selecting the politicians because too few people vote in primaries.
Ranked choice voting with all candidates, regardless of party, running in a single primary, could solve this (rated politician voting seems the best version)