ACE

Tag: Influence

  • Pros and Cons of Congressional Term Limits

    Pros and Cons of Congressional Term Limits

    Background: What are Congressional Term Limits?

    While members of the U.S. House of Representatives serve two-year terms and U.S. Senators serve six-year terms, all Congresspeople are eligible for re-election indefinitely. As of 2023, U.S. Representatives served an average term of 8.5 years, while U.S. Senators served an average term of 11.2 years. 

    Congressional term limits are a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the number of terms a member of Congress can legally serve. Under Article V, the Constitution can be amended by either (1) a two-thirds vote of support in both chambers of Congress, or (2) a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of all states and ratified by three-fourths of all states. Term limits reached their highest level of political salience in the 1990s. In 1992, Arkansas voters attempted to impose term limits on their state’s federal congresspeople via an amendment to their state constitution. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the Supreme Court decided that this amendment was unconstitutional and that states cannot impose term limits on their own federal delegation; the only way to impose congressional term limits is to amend the U.S. Constitution. 

    Current Attempts to Impose Congressional Term Limits

    In 2024, Representative Ralph Norman (R-SC) introduced a joint resolution to amend the Constitution and enact a three-term limit for Representatives and a two-term limit for Senators. The resolution died in committee. In January 2025, Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Katie Britt (R-AL) introduced a resolution with the same provisions. Their proposed amendment was co-sponsored by 17 senators, all of whom are Republicans. 

    While the constitution has never been amended through a constitutional convention, some states are also taking that approach to impose congressional term limits due to limited success of prior joint resolutions in Congress. Indiana’s State Senate recently voted to approve a resolution calling for a convention to consider term limits. If the Indiana House passes the resolution, Indiana will become the tenth state to call for a constitutional convention, joining Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

    Arguments In Favor of Congressional Term Limits

    The case for congressional term limits centers on the following arguments: (1) Term limits motivate politicians to get more done while in office, (2) Congressional turnover eliminates the incumbent funding advantage, (3) Term limits reduce careerism in politics, and (4) Congressional term limits have widespread support.

    One common argument in favor of congressional term limits is that the policy will incentivize politicians to act more efficiently and effectively during their term given the knowledge that they cannot serve indefinitely. Some argue that today, legislators avoid taking immediate action on hot-button issues like immigration and healthcare because they know those issues drive voters to the polls. These proponents argue that congressional term limits would help shift lawmakers’ core objective from winning re-election to creating effective, long-term policy solutions. 

    Advocates for congressional term limits also express concern that members of Congress are unrepresentative of their constituents, especially in terms of economic status. They highlight that funding has become a barrier to becoming an elected official and that incumbency is often linked with disproportionately high campaign funds, making it difficult for newcomer candidates to win against an incumbent. Proponents of term limits say the policy would reduce this incumbent advantage, leveling the funding playing field every two or three terms so that candidates have more of an equal financial footing heading into their race. Supporters also suggest that term limits could indirectly decrease the role of corporate funders in politics by deterring companies from making major investments in lawmakers who will only hold power for a short period. 

    Other proponents of congressional term limits argue that the policy would limit careerism in Congress by making room for people with more real-world expertise to service. They highlight that the average duration of time served in Congress has been steadily increasing from 8.9 years to 11 years, arguing this demonstrates that congressional office is viewed as a career plan instead of a post of service. In the absence of indefinite congressional roles, proponents argue, everyday Americans with more recent connections to the job market would have more opportunities than career politicians who are “insulated from the communities they represent.”

    Finally, proponents of congressional term limits highlight that the majority of Americans support the policy. A 2023 Pew Research Center study found that 87% of respondents favored limiting the number of terms one person can serve in congress. A different 2023 study from the Maryland School of Public Policy found support for congressional term limits transcended political party, with 86% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 84% of Independents in favor of the policy.

    Arguments Against Congressional Term Limits

    The arguments against congressional term limits are primarily built around the three subarguments: (1) Term limits fail to address political corruption, (2) Term limits ignore the value of the incumbency and institutional knowledge, and (3) Frequent congressional turnover shifts power away from the legislative branch. 

    Some opponents argue that congressional term limits fail to curtail political corruption, and may even worsen the problem. They hold that imposing term limits will cause lawmakers to work more closely with lobbyists for two reasons. First, given that term limits will cause a sharp increase in the number of “freshmen” lawmakers with limited legislative experience, critics argue that more politicians will rely more closely on lobbyists and special interest groups to write or recommend laws to “fill [lawmakers’] own informational and policy gaps.” Second, critics warn that term limits will only exacerbate the “revolving door” phenomenon in which retired legislators seek to maintain political influence by securing careers as lobbyists or private sector government affairs consultants. They cite a 2023 study that found that state governments with term limits saw an increase in the frequency of political corruption events. The study observed a “penultimate effect”, where state legislators under a term limitation devoted more of their last term to securing their personal power than to passing policy. Given that the frequency of last terms will increase significantly under term limit policy, opponents worry about an accompanying increase in political corruption. 

    Opponents of term limits also argue that the values of political incumbency in the legislative process are taken for granted. They argue that policymaking is a specialized skill that must be developed over time, highlighting examples of how bills with loopholes and contradictions – the result of unskilled policymaking – harm the American public. They hold that incumbency’s value is its ability to maintain legislative efficiency and institutional knowledge. Given that federal policymaking is a skill that can only be learned on-the-job, critics say incumbency gives lawmakers the opportunity to become the specialized professionals their constituents deserve. They also argue that bipartisan partnerships among lawmakers take years to cultivate, and that term limits would hinder cross-party collaboration. 

    The third core criticism of term limits is that the policy would shift power to the executive and the private sector at the detriment of democracy. As lawmakers are denied longer tenures, opponents argue, lobbyists and staffers become the primary voice of experience in the legislature. Additionally, critics suggest that a decrease in experienced legislators with cross-aisle relationships will further hinder Congress’ ability to efficiently pass legislation, catalyzing an increase in executive orders and other executive branch actions. This will create hurdles to the traditional system of checks and balances. 

    Conclusion 

    The debate over congressional term limits is longstanding and complex. While proponents argue that the policy will increase legislative efficacy, decrease corruption, and represent the will of the people, critics worry that it could have a counteractive effect. As the debate continues, countless questions linger. How much do we value incumbency? How are money and careerism intertwined? Is the legislature representative enough? Is legislative efficiency worth risking? After all of those questions have been asked, there is only one question left: Should Americans be for or against congressional term limits?

  • Failures and Successes of NATO

    Failures and Successes of NATO

    Introduction

    NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a military and political alliance founded in 1949 and dedicated to ensuring the security and freedom of its members. As the Cold War took shape and the Soviet Union threatened European governments, the founding countries of NATO determined that a transatlantic alliance was necessary to both deter Soviet aggression and promote political integration rather than militarism. In the decades since, NATO has grown in structure and members into the organization it is today. The primary political council of NATO is the North Atlantic Council (NAC), and it is chaired by NATO’s Secretary General. Each member has a seat on this council and all decisions are made by consensus, so that any decision made by NATO reflects the will of all members. If a decision reached under the NAC or a political subcommittee has military implications, the Military Committee is responsible for giving expert advice to the NAC and for organizing and carrying out NATO’s military operations. 

    The United States is the largest financial contributor to NATO and a key member of the alliance. The alliance promotes democratic ideas and peaceful conflict resolution around the world. Countries looking to join must have a functioning democratic government and a commitment to peacefully resolve conflict. With a large network of members and resources, NATO aims to hold its members to a standard of democracy and intervenes to defuse conflicts before they happen. However, there is continuous debate over how to handle NATO member states experiencing democratic backsliding. In addition, conflict is deterred by the collective defense aspect of NATO, where an attack on one member is an attack on all members. Despite its shortcomings and the challenges it faces, it is often considered to be one of the most successful international alliances in history.

    There are currently thirty members of NATO and several countries are aspiring to join. Other countries are engaged in working partnerships with the alliance, while not being members.

    Source: Statista

    A Brief History

    • 1949: As communism spread across Europe, and the Soviet’s influence increased, the United States’ desire for a security treaty with Western Europe outside of the UN’s Security Council (where the USSR held veto power) led to the creation of NATO.
    • 1955: In response to West Germany joining NATO, the Soviet Union and seven other Eastern European countries formed the Warsaw Pact.
    • 1991: The Soviet Union collapsed, leading to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. The North Atlantic Cooperation Council was created as a platform for cooperation between old Warsaw Pact members and NATO.
    • 1995: NATO became involved in its first ever crisis response operation, leading the Implementation Force, a peace enforcement force during the Bosnian War.
    • 2001: 9/11 resulted in NATO invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the first, and only, time. Article 5 states that “an attack against one… shall be considered an attack against them all.” NATO launched several counter-terrorism initiatives and deployed military forces to Afghanistan.
    • 2003: NATO takes control of the International Security Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, a UN-mandated security force responsible for ensuring the Afghan government’s authority.
    • 2014: NATO suspends most relations with Russia over their illegal annexation of Crimea.

    Successes

    1. The Cold War: During the Cold War, NATO’s efforts were centered around three goals: controlling the Soviet Union, dissuading militant nationalism and communism across Europe, and establishing greater European political unity. The alliance played a major role in maintaining the tense peace of the Cold War and ensuring the war remained ‘cold’. With the end of the war, NATO worked to further maintain peace. They established the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and, in 1997, NATO encouraged bilateral discussion between the United States and Russia through the Founding Act.
    2. Modern Day Protection: Today, NATO continues to provide a level of protection for its members. Since its founding, a NATO member has only been attacked and evoked Article 5 once (the United States after 9/11). Member countries are afforded collective security, just as NATO originally sought to do. Additionally, NATO has created a global network of more than 40 countries and other partners around the globe—ranging from the African Union to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). This network provides NATO support in its crisis management operations, ranging from aid operations such as its delivery of relief supplies after the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake to counter-terrorism operations in the Mediterranean and the coast of Somalia.
    3. The Ukraine War: NATO has publicly denounced the Russian invasion of Ukraine and NATO member countries and allies have provided substantial aid to Ukraine. The United States has contributed roughly $54 billion to Ukraine. Other countries have provided humanitarian aid and support for the more than 5 million refugees of the war. The Ukraine war has reaffirmed the importance of NATO, and even spurred Finland and Sweden to increase their efforts to join the alliance. These countries’ membership would strengthen the alliance militarily through increased air and submarine capabilities, allowing for NATO to further dissuade Russian aggression.

    Failures

    1. Funding Issues: In 2006, NATO Defense Ministers agreed to a commitment that 2% of their countries’ GDP would be allocated towards defense spending. However, the majority of NATO members do not meet this goal. Currently, the United States accounts for over two-thirds of the alliance’s defense spending.
    2. Afghanistan: After 9/11, NATO was a considerable presence in Afghanistan, and their forces were crucial in their support of the Afghan government. When President Donald Trump signed an agreement with the Taliban in 2020, both NATO and American troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan. What followed was an immediate fall in the Afghan government at the hands of the Taliban. Despite the two decades NATO spent in Afghanistan, no long term solution was reached, and without their presence, the nation’s former government could not survive.
    3. Right-Wing Nationalism: With the spread of right-wing nationalism across Europe, discontent with international institutions like NATO and the EU grows. If right-wing nationalist movements continue to increase in popularity across Europe, there could be increased calls for countries to leave institutions like NATO. The challenge NATO faces now is how to combat and address their criticism, and how to unify a divided Europe.
    4. Russian Aggression: Despite supposed verbal promises to Russia that it would not expand to the east, NATO has admitted several former Warsaw Pact members since the fall of the Soviet Union. Now, with NATO members bordering Russia and the promise of further expansion, Russia feels increasingly threatened. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO has been cited as a significant reason for Vladmir Putin’s invasion of the country.

    The Future of NATO

    As the war in Ukraine continues, NATO is more relevant now than it has been in decades. NATO plays a role in distributing military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and the alliance will be influential in the outcome of the war. NATO serves as a means of collective defense and security against Russia and the increasing threat to international order that they represent. With debates over how NATO can best assist Ukraine, and how to best avoid conflicts such as this in the future, NATO will have to revisit its current deterrence strategy in the upcoming years. Also at play is the growing role of China on the world stage. NATO must consider that the world does not revolve solely around the Euro-Atlantic region, and address questions about its role outside this region and across the globe. NATO continues to be essential towards not only the security of its members including the United States, but to the world.