Term limits return power to people

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT is representative. We pull from our neighbors to find the people who should lead us.

But we don’t put those people in place forever. Or at least, we don’t plan on it.

Frequently, however, it seems to play out that way. U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is 91. He is the longest-serving sitting senator, now in his 50th year in Congress.

Eleven members of the Senate were not even born when he was sworn in to the House of Representatives in 1975.

Of the 10 longest-serving sitting members of Congress, there are six Democrats and four Republicans, six senators and four representatives. They have been in office 40 years or more.

According to the Pew Research Center, 87% of American adults think this is too long. They support limiting how many terms a member of Congress can serve. Of those, 56% say they strongly support it. Only 12% think the length of time legislators can serve should be unfettered.

U.S. Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pittsburgh, is new to Capitol Hill, but if his resolution goes through, he won’t spend much time there. He proposed a maximum of 12 years for each chamber. That would mean two sixyear terms for the Senate and six two-year terms in the House.

The proposal echoes that of another Pennsylvanian, U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Bucks County. It follows promises McCormick made while running to serve no more than two terms. That follows in the footsteps of former Sen. Pat Toomey, who stepped down at the end of his term in 2023, fulfilling a two-term promise.

Every member of Congress, regardless of party or chamber, should support this.

It is better for the House and Senate, keeping the lawmakers more connected to what life is like in their districts and outside of Washington. The life of a Chuck Schumer or a Mitch McConnell, with more than four decades in the Capitol, is not the life of the average New Yorker or Kentuckian they represent.

It is better for the parties. Right now, both the Democrats and Republicans are struggling with parties pulled apart at the seams by internal factions exacerbated by age. That can create the kind of rifts that have paralyzed action.

It is better for the country. We placed term limits on the presidency for a reason. We recognized that too much power for too long was not beneficial — that even if it meant turning over the reins to the other side, it was better than creating dynasties.

It is better for the people. It recenters the power in the hands of the voters. Incumbents tend to win, meaning unless a legislator decides to step down, that person is likely to stay in office. Term limits mean incumbents can’t become insurmountable obstacles.

This would require amending the constitution, as happened after Franklin Delano Roosevelt won his unprecedented fourth term as president.

An amendment is a worthy goal if it prevents people serving a lifetime in Congress.