There has been much written about the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy and, never having met him personally, I'll just have to take a lot of the accounts at face value.  I have no reason to think that he wasn't a good friend, father, etc. in his private life, and I prefer to stay in the realm of ideas rather than speculation.  I've seen a few inappropriate comments regarding his death, but that has become the coin of the realm in political rhetoric these days.  But what I particularly noticed this week is completely divorced from the person of Ted Kennedy.

Edward Moore Kennedy was first elected to the United States Senate in 1962, at the age of 31.  A classic quote came from his opponent in the Democratic Primary:  if his name had simply been Edward Moore, without the Kennedy, his candidacy would've been a joke.  The joke was on his opponent, as Kennedy won the primary with 65% of the vote, and beat George Cabot Lodge in the general election.  While now a lost name, the Lodges were then what the Bushes (or Kennedys) are now:  almost royalty.

Since that point — nearly 50 years ago — Ted Kennedy has served in the Senate.  By any account, he has been an influential legislator; whether or not he's been "successful" depends on your point of view.  He's only lost one election, ever:  his challenge to Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination in 1980; he responded by giving one of the most memorable speeches I've ever seen, a speech that even when viewed today is an example of great political rhetoric, well delivered.  Whatever he might have lacked in other areas Senator Kennedy was gifted in oratory.

But here's the key:  why should anyone, whether Ted Kennedy or, say, Barry Goldwater, stay in the senate for 50 years?  Seniority in our Congress — especially the Senate — brings with it influence and power.  The longer one stays in the Congress, the more well-connected he or she becomes.  In the House of Representatives, this is certainly noticeable, but in the Senate —one-quarter the size of the House, and laden with arcane rules and procedures — seniority and knowledge of the Senate workings becomes a weapon, one that Senator Kennedy learned to wield with deft precision.

But again comes the question:  should anyone have that much time to accumulate that much power?  My response is a resounding "NO!"  That's why I favor term limits for our national legislature.  Our President has a limit of two 4-year terms, largely as a reaction to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's four elected terms (the last of which he was unable to serve to its completion).  In my opinion, George Washington set the correct tone when he voluntarily left after 2 terms.  His driving force, from what I've read, was the idea that he shouldn't die in office, thus potentially setting up a near-monarchal succession.  I believe his instincts were correct.

In addition to the mere accumulation of power, unlimited terms in Congress provide the incumbents with huge advantages in future elections.  Whether it is the "franking" privilege ("informational" mailings paid for by tax dollars) or the opportunity to "earmark" pork barrel projects in their home states, or merely name recognition and the ability to generate free press, incumbents have major advantages when running for re-election compared to their challengers.  Add to that campaign fundraising restrictions and other "reform" measures, and you have a clear advantage to incumbents legislators.

Many legislators need never live under the laws that they work to pass.  How many more restrictions and mandates do we have on, say, small businesses because we have legislators who have never themselves run one? 

There are many who repeat the mantra that "elections are term limits", and a high-profile, unexpected defeat of an incumbent is given as evidence that it is possible for a Goliath to be toppled; however, I take it as the opposite:  the idea that such surprises are so easily named is evidence of how rare they are.  When they do occur, it tends to involve not just a change in the will of the electorate, but some sort of corruption or scandal. 

Another reason given in opposition to term limitations is that because of the turnover, the officeholders themselves are less knowledgeable of the issues and details, thus making lobbyists and staff more powerful.  To that, I first would say that we need to make the government less intrusive on liberty and the economy, and there would be less incentive to have lobbyists as intimately involved in writing legislation.  But to the address the less philosophical issue of staff and lobbyist influence on unseasoned legislators, I would merely say that if a particular Senator or Congressman can't learn the job in 2 or 6 years, it would sound like a good reason to vote in someone new; likewise if someone is so easily manipulated by others.  I've seen no real evidence of this problem in other bodies that have implemented term limits, and it doesn't seem to hamper the President very much.  The limits I favor would still provide ample time for Senators and Representatives to become acquainted in the ways of Congress and, if successful legislators, enact an agenda:  10 years (5 terms) in the House, and 12 years (2 terms) in the Senate.

There are some that argue that term limits are limits on individual choice.  To some extent that's true, but the idea of enacting limitations on officeholders is hardly unprecedented; the Constitution provides residency and age restrictions.  Obviously, each state's voters should decide whether or not to implement limits on state government officials; however, if Massachusetts sends Ted Kennedy to the Senate for 50 years, it doesn't just impact that state, it impacts government policy in all 50 states.  Based on the aforementioned advantages of the incumbency, enacting term limits actually empowers citizens — it empowers them not to be at the mercy of an individual legislator amassing vast power based on a few voters in another state.

To cash in on the condolences for Senator Kennedy's death, some have called for the health care "reform" legislation to be named in his memory.  However, rather than an "Edward M. Kennedy Health Reform Act", I propose instead a "Kennedy Amendment" to the Constitution.  Let's put an end to lifetime legislators, once and for all.