Why Term Limits?

Common sense tells me that experience and historical knowledge are valuable.  If that experience is not countered by conflicting forces, then it would be hard to argue in favor of term limits.

Unfortunately, we know there are many forces at work in every decision and every vote.  At a minimum these include:

• Re-election with their constituency
• Ensuring reliable sources for campaign donations
• Forwarding personal financial interests
• Party loyalty
• Advancement within the Party

When these forces are layered on top of genuine differences in philosophy, the result is stagnation, rhetoric, finger pointing, and a barrage of propaganda aimed to manipulate the public.

When a new legislator arrives in Washington, despite the noblest of intentions, they will be indoctrinated by Party elders.  If they don't play by the rules, they will find it difficult to influence decisions that matter to them.

Limiting the number of years a legislator can serve in office will disrupt the current system for distributing power, and dramatically change the forces at work when solving America's problems.  It will create an environment where fresh ideas can be brought to the table, and historic rivalries have less potential to stagnate.  Above all else, it will return us to the intent of our framers, whereby political representation is a service we perform on behalf of our community, not a career that insulates a select few from the realities of the decisions they make.

Granted, if every legislator started in Congress at the same time, there would be challenges to establishing leadership positions and carrying forward the nations agenda.  These issues, I believe, are easier to overcome than the inevitable thirst for more power after getting a taste.