Term limits would upend Congress as we know it

Congressional term limits have turned into something of a rallying cry this year for Americans across the political spectrum, percolating on social media and cable news every time the nation gets a stark reminder of the advancing age and frailty of its top leaders.

Riding that wave of interest, a group of House Republicans — who were back in Washington this week after summer recess — are looking to bring a proposed constitutional amendment on term limits to a floor vote this session.

Such an amendment has little chance of garnering the two-thirds majority vote needed for ratification, let alone passing in three-fourths of the state legislatures. But if it did, it would render the legislative branch as we know it unrecognizable.

Term limits also have broad bipartisan support among Americans. A February survey out of the University of Maryland found that 83 percent of registered voters — including 86 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of Democrats — supported a constitutional amendment restricting how long members can serve.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Depends on whom you ask.

• Supporters say term limits would rid Congress of entrenched and ineffectual career politicians, replacing them with “citizen lawmakers” who are more in touch with the world outside Washington.
• But policy experts on the right and left say experience matters when you’re running a country as complex and powerful as this one.
• Newcomers don’t have the relationships or know-how to craft effective policy, they argue, and could very well end up deferring to lobbyists, staffers and officials in other parts of government to get things done.
• “You’re actually just empowering more of the professional Washington class,” said Philip Wallach, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
• term limits could worsen the revolving-door problem between Congress and the private sector.
• “It would create more forced opportunities for people to revolve,” Reynolds said. “The bottom line is, if you’re taking out more experienced members, what’s filling the vacuum left by them?”

More From The Washington Post (subscription required):