Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ted Cruz is right!

Opinion

Sen. Ted Cruz

A bill sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz would limit House members to three two-year terms and senators to two six-year terms.

Sergio Flores/Getty Images

Natbony is the author and originator of The Lonely Realist.


Sen. Ted Cruz is the lead sponsor of a proposed constitutional amendment that would impose term limits on members of Congress. Senators would be limited to two six-year terms and House members to three two-year terms. Although voters in the 1990s supported sweeping term limit legislation that imposed limits on state and local officeholders, the congressional term limits movement stalled in 1995 when the Supreme Court ruled that federal limits require a constitutional amendment.

The result has been congressional term limit stagnation, with more than 90 percent of House incumbents being re-elected year after year and the reelection rate among Senators falling below 80 percent just three times since 1982.

More than 60 percent of Republicans and Democrats support the adoption of federal term limits, recognizing that the Congressional Incumbents Club is a paradigm of careerism, combining power, stature and influence with lavish benefits: a high salary; unparalleled business connections; limited working days; spectacular working conditions; periodic taxpayer-funded fact-finding trips; a sizable staff (that could include family and friends); exceptional medical, dental and retirement benefits; weakened insider trading rules; taxpayer funded legal expenses; the ability to moonlight at other jobs; free flights back and forth to the lawmaker's home state; a family death gratuity; and free parking.

No wonder those elected to Congress make every effort to hold onto their jobs and special-interest groups spend lavishly to ensure that those they've elected continue to protect and enhance their special interests.

These perks help to explain why public confidence in Congress remains near an all-time low — 12 percent according to a 2021 Gallup poll. The consensus that Congress is broken is so widely-held that if ever there was an issue that should command bipartisan support, it's congressional term limits. Although the Heritage Foundation concluded in 1994 that "term limits are here to stay as an important issue on the American political landscape," it and the U.S. Term Limits lobby badly misunderstood the degree of self-interest and power of the Congressional Incumbents Club. Unless a Constitutional change movement originates with the states and mobilizes its way to Congress (as previously suggested), term limits bills are doomed to gather dust on congressional bookshelves.

Term limits have been a net benefit at the state and local levels. They would bring new perspectives to Congress, encouraging those with fresh ideas to run for office (perhaps to some degree offsetting the Supreme Court's 2019 holding that gerrymandering is constitutional). Term limits also would diminish incentives for election-related spending that have proliferated in the careerist Congress (especially following the Supreme Court's 2010 decision validating the solicitation and receipt of unlimited campaign contributions).

Although there are strong arguments against term limits, a further significant benefit would be a counterbalancing of incumbent financial and media advantages, as well as the name recognition, media access and embedded political contributions that flow to incumbency. Term limits also would incentivize members of Congress to nurture their successors by providing the types of apprenticeship experiences that make for practical staff training in other industries, thereby taking legislation out of the hands of lobbyists, bureaucrats and unelected Beltway insiders.

Read More

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment
holding hands
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment

America’s drug policy is broken. For decades, we’ve focused primarily on the supply side—interdicting smugglers, prosecuting dealers, and escalating penalties while neglecting the demand side. Individuals who use drugs, more often than not, do so out of desperation, trauma, or addiction. This imbalance has cost lives, strained law enforcement, and failed to stem the tide of overdose deaths.

Fentanyl now kills an estimated 80,000 Americans annually. In response, some leaders have proposed extreme measures, including capital punishment for traffickers. But if we apply that logic consistently, what do we say about tobacco? Cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke kill nearly 480,000 Americans

Keep ReadingShow less
From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

U.S. Constitution

Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

Many Americans have lost faith in the basic principles and form of the Constitutional Republic, as set forth by the Founders. People are abandoning Democratic ideals to create systems that multiply offenses against Constitutional safeguards, materializing in book banning, speech-restricting, and recent attempts to enact gerrymandering that dilutes the votes of “political opponents.” This represents Democratic erosion and a trend that endangers Constitutional checks and representative governance.

First, the recent gerrymandering, legal precedent, and founding principles should be reexamined, specifically, around the idea that our Founders did not predict this type of partisan map-drawing.

Keep ReadingShow less