Let the Voters Determine Tenure : Terms: A mandatory revolving door would only strengthen the bureaucracy. Representative government would lose.

Imposing a limit on the number of terms that a U.S. representative or senator can serve--thereby regularly sweeping clean the corridors of power in Washington--seems to be the cause of the moment.

People who advocate this proposal accept the logical fallacy that “new is better” and must believe that elective office is the one vocation where experience is an obstacle to good performance.

In our nation’s earliest years, the citizen-legislator was a useful idea. Leaving the plow and riding horseback to New York, Philadelphia or, later, to Washington was a workable arrangement in a largely agricultural country whose total population in 1790 was about 3.6 million.

Today’s America is vastly more populous, enormously more complicated and requires the full-time attention of someone. Should that someone be the permanent bureaucracy? Unelected, unresponsive and unaccountable, the power of bureaucrats in the day-to-day operations of government already far exceed that of elected and politically appointed officials, whose tenure is inherently transitory. A mandatory revolving door for elected officials would only strengthen the grip of the permanent bureaucracy. Representative government would be the loser.

No one maintains that democracy always produces the best or most noble result, but as Winston Churchill reminded us, it’s better than any other system. To deny the voters complete choice in who will represent them in Congress is to say that the people can’t be trusted; that their options should be limited by requiring a turnover every few years. This would effectively deprive our country of the wisdom and experience, accumulated over long years of sensitive and sensible service, of many outstanding public officials.

To believe, as some do, that America is governed by a permanent Congress is a great leap not supported by fact. Only 19% of House members elected before 1974 are still serving. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, there was a 55% turnover in the House.

To assume that a member of Congress can learn all about government in a few years is simplistic nonsense. If a district or a state is ill-served by a second-rate representative, the remedy is available. Incumbents can be defeated. Run better candidates and campaigns, and turn the electorate out to vote. A light turnout reflects the failure of the opposition to ignite the voters. Often people vote against candidates or for issues. But when they’re satisfied, too many don’t bother to vote at all. That’s human nature.

For Congress to truly reflect the diversity of America, its members should be drawn from the widest range of citizens possible. Because every age group brings a unique perspective. people in mid-life should be encouraged to join the young and the old in public service. If there are artificial limits on the years of service, then the young will begin their careers in Congress and the elderly will end their careers in Congress, but those in mid-life will be largely unwilling to devote their most productive, creative years to a vocation with no tenure and whose only prospect is enforced retirement.

No, have faith in democracy, let the people choose and don’t disqualify those who can bring sound judgment born of years of experience to the increasingly demanding tasks of elected office.