by Nicolas Tomboulides
When I read Professor Jonathan Zimmerman’s critique of the 22nd amendment in the Washington Post, I was surprised to find myself in agreement with him on so many of the practical effects of presidential term limits. Where we diverge, though, is his belief that these effects are in need of a remedy.
He first quoted Sen. Harvey Kilgore (D-W.Va.), who stated during the 22nd amendment debate in 1947 that “no one will obey” the executive if he is prohibited from a third term.
“That’s absolutely true,” I thought, having studied the issue at length. What Zimmerman and Kilgore overlooked, however, is that we as Americans — from the founding onward — have always eschewed obedience to a President or king. Our duty is not to any sovereign, but to the rule of law. We have, as John Adams described it in Novanglus No. 7, “a government of laws, and not of men.”
Another of Zimmerman’s principal objections to term limits seems to be that they fail to insulate the President from political criticism. He cites Democratic lawmakers who have run afield from the President on issues like Obamacare and the nuclear deal with Iran. While Zimmerman sees this dissent as a defect, many Americans would say it proves term limits are working as intended.
Term limits supporters have always believed that the reform forces elected officials to focus more on principle and less on political considerations. Thomas Jefferson believed this, writing that term limits can “keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget.”
By enabling Democrats to speak their minds on President Obama’s policies, term limits are holding true to Jefferson’s word. Those who believe that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” should be cheering the open-minded discourse, rather than joining in Zimmerman’s chorus to have it shut down.
As Zimmerman accurately points out, one of the most common arguments against term limits comes from supporters of a particular President. Reaganites told us, “Reagan needs this,” referring to an undoing of the 22nd amendment. Clintonites were equally as vociferous in their call for a third term.
Zimmerman and the American people must remember: momentary attachment to one President is no justification for throwing away a great constitutional amendment. The immediate benefits of keeping one’s favorite President in office are undoubtedly offset by giving the same privilege to those with whom one disagrees.
Unlike the argument against them, the case for term limits is a principled one on its own merit. Its worthiness does not depend on the context of whomever it is helping at a particular time. Term limits curb special interest influence in elections by providing more opportunities to non-establishment candidates. On the executive level, they help curtail any efforts by a President to leverage the office into a fundraising arm for his next campaign.
Even President Obama’s administration supports term limits. When Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega moved to strike down that country’s two-term limit on presidential service last month, our State Department spoke out against it. Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki wrote in a statement that the measure will “concentrate power and undermine checks and balances.”
The same principle applies here.
Opponents of the 22nd amendment like Zimmerman are almost always well-intentioned, but misguided. My hope is that they will learn to see term limits not as a law holding back any particular President, but as the broad reform it is – one which holds all of our leaders accountable.