Public Policy follows a standardized analysis utilizing five different criteria to evaluate the viability of any policy proposal. These include effectiveness; efficiency; equity/ethics; liberty; and feasibility, (Political, Social, Administrative, Technical, Biblical).
Oftentimes a minimum of two criteria can be used to offer a persuasive evaluation; depending on their level of contention. Congressional term Limits must consider all possible aspects to effectively implement lasting sanctions in contemporary polity.
Effectiveness and Efficiency
As Michael Kraft denotes, “effectiveness criterion is evident in the all-too-frequent complaints about the failure of government programs,” whereas efficiency “is a way of justifying government action based on economic concepts,” (Kraft, M., pp. 170, 171). This raises two questions: first—why do government programs persistently fail? And, second—why must their observable actions be justified?
Political scientist John G. Matsusaka, recognizes the likelihood that invoking term limits upon Congress would produce an immediate change “[m]aking elections more competitive seems like a natural target for reform because most legislators have little or no competition,” (Matsusaka, J., p. 47). Matsusaka asks the reader to “[c]onsider first whether legislators are more likely to vote in accord with constituent opinion when competition increases; adding that whilst “65 percent [of] legislators usually voted in accord with their districts’ preferences;” Matsusaka believes the constituency must consider the “35 percent of roll-call votes that were cast contrary to district opinion,” (Matsusaka, J., pp. 45, 48). He cites two reasons for the clash in representation: “conscious decisions” or “honest mistakes;” yet as Matsusaka concludes “[h]onest mistakes should be rare in these districts because majority opinion is easy to determine,” (Matsusaka, J., p. 48).
Fernando Aragón, a university professor of economics in Canada, argues against term limits; citing that “a reelected politician may be able to avoid costly political transitions, such as appointing and training new advisers or preparing new government plans,” additionally adding that incumbent pol are able account for “experience or political continuity, are relevant determinants of government performance and policy implementation,” (Aragón, F., pp. 1,2). John G. Matsusaka opines that “[u]nfortunately, there is reason to doubt that current reform proposals will make much of a dent in the problem.” Matsusaka believes that the main policy proposals “to increase electoral competition and reduce the amount of money in campaignsare ineffective to giving the power of autonomy back to the people, (Matsusaka, J., p. 52). Matsusaka asserts that “the disconnection is not fundamentally a problem with legislatures; it stems from the shift in decision-making authority to unelected technocrats and judges;” concluding that “[e]ven if legislators were made fully responsive to constituent preferences, most policy decisions would remain outside the control of the people,” (Matsusaka, J., p. 52).
Equity and Ethics
The criteria of equity is redistributive, focusing on fairness and justice—yet its detriment resides in its inability to calculate specific quantities of subjective expression, (Kraft, M., p. 202).
Equity is divided into two components, “process equity and outcomes (end-result) equity,” (Kraft, M., p. 174). Michael Kraft depicts Rawlsian theory on equity depicted in his work that “equity or fairness refers to just outcomes or the fair distribution of societal goods such as wealth, income, and political power,” (Kraft, M., p. 174). John Rawls (1921–2002) expounds that, “[t]he requirement of consistency holds of course for the interpretation of all rules and for justifications at all levels. Eventually reasoned arguments for discriminatory judgments become harder to formulate and the attempt to do so less persuasive. This precept holds also in cases of equity, that is, when an exception is to be made when the established rule works an unexpected hardship,” (Rawls, J., p. 209).
Conversely, Eric Hansen believes that equity needn’t be considered when considering party leadership in state legislatures. Hansen writes that “historically underrepresented groups do not face systematic exclusion from leadership positions in state legislatures. This finding is surprising because we might expect groups already underrepresented in the legislature to face further barriers to advancement,” (Hansen, E., pp. 86, 87).
John G. Matsusaka contends that historical evidence shows that congruency [between the constituency and the representative] is lower in battleground districts; writing that data displays, “[i]n a highly competitive district, roughly half of the voters end up with a representative opposed to their views… [c]reating competitive districts does not guarantee more congruence, and could even make representation worse,” (Matsusaka, p. 49). On ethics, Matsusaka resolves to the inherent depravity of man as “[t]he main reason for noncongruence;” expounding that “legislators generally follow their ideological predispositions, independently of district opinion,” (Matsusaka, J., p. 50). The Apostle Paul scribes of the civic obligation to ensure cities are ruled by good. God’s Holy Spirit decrees us to “[d]etest evil; [and] cling to what is good. Love one another deeply as brothers and sisters. Take the lead in honoring one another. Do not lack diligence in zeal; be fervent in the Spirit; serve the Lord,” (Romans 12:9b-11; CSB).
Individual Liberty
Public Policy must consider citizens’ individual liberties; lest infringing on the civic sovereignty that America was founded upon. Equality remains a benevolent concept to source public policy; albeit legislated equities must consider malevolent repugnant depravities inherent in men, alongside their propensity to exploit enumerated liberties. Political theorist William F. Buckley, Jr. contends that man should adhere to a No-Program—that the individual themselves should reject ceding more power to the state, (Buckley, W., p. 210). To live life “an obedient man, but obedient to God,” concluding that man should remain “subservient” to the wisdom of his ancestors; “never to the authority of political truths;” as these positions of temporal subjectivity; thus contingent on culture, (Buckley, W., p. 210).
As political scientist Mila Versteeg contends, incumbent politicians touting a façade of liberty drift the nation closer to an authoritative state. Versteeg asserts that “[t]oday’s authoritarians are different. Indeed, since the 1990s, the nature of authoritarianism has undergone a profound change. Many leaders of the regimes that we now consider authoritarian in nature did not come to power through force: They were democratically elected. Autocratic leaders now routinely rise to power through the ballot box or via a ruling party, rather than through the barrel of a gun,” (Versteeg, M., p. 190). The incumbency advantage is historically recorded and poses an apparent threat to our Constitutional Republic, individual liberties, and to democracy.
Feasibility (Political, Social, Administrative, & Technical)
Public policy requires prophesy (Acts 2:17-18; 1 Corinthians 14:1-6) thus, the criterion of feasibility must be considered. Congressional term limits assess feasibility using political, social, administrative, and technical criteria; all impacting its advocacy and eventual working implementation. Political feasibility considers incumbent pol; whilst social acceptability considers the interests of the public; but administrative feasibility considers the bureaucracy; whereas technical feasibility considers the technological limitations that must be observed, (Kraft, M., p. 202).
David Rosenbloom of American University and City University of Hong Kong wrote that
“[s]ince 1946, federal administration in the United States has been deliberately regulated by an expanding administrative law framework intended to make it more compatible with the nations constitutional democracy;” Rosenbloom observes that “[t]he Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 and related measures ensure at least minimum levels of fairness and an opportunity for recourse in court;” Rosenbloom contends that contemporary public administration merely concerned with “moving problems…rather than solving them.” (Rosenbloom, D., p. S315). Rosenbloom adds that “[t]he administration of public mental health facilities, prisons, and jails has been thoroughly constitutionalized,” (Rosenbloom, D., p. s315). The political and administrative feasibility are influenced by incumbent pol; thus, Congress possesses the power to effectively kill bills favoring term limits.
Biblical Application
In the Book of Luke, Jesus replies to a very rich man, when asked who it is exactly that will be saved by God’s grace. Jesus responded to this request with a revelatory reminder applicable in contemporary polity; “[w]hat is impossible for people is possible with God.” (Luke 18:27; NLT). Citizens must recognize no one politician is capable of single-handedly amending public problems. Thus, elected politicians should strive to contribute to one specific aspect of policy during their incumbency. The Apostle Paul scribed through God’s Holy Spirit “[b]ear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself,” Galatians 6:2-5 (ESV). In Paul’s letter to the city of Corinth, he wrote that, “[r]ight now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it. In this way, things will be equal,” (2 Corinthians 8:11-14; NLT). Congress must strive to make the nation a better place, under the expectation that they will return to live in the same political environment they curate by policy.
Conclusion
In considering the evaluative criteria for proposing public policy, many factors must be considered to preclude the maleficence of career politicians. Whilst many arguments can be made against term limits; there exists more evidence in favor of an improvement to society and the posterity of civic representation. Congressional term limits require prophetic discernment combined with tangible evaluative criteria, offering greater provision to the importance of specific foreseeable obstacles regarding particular issues, in order to better solve evident public problems.
Bibliography
Aragón, F. et al. (2020). Better the Devil you Know? Reelected Politicians and Policy Outcomes Under no Term Limits. Public Choice, 182(1/2), 1–16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48732797
Buckley Jr., W. F. Up From Liberalism. Hauraki Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Hansen, E. R., & Clark, C. J. (2020). Diversity in Party Leadership in State Legislatures. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 20(1), 81–107. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26973470
Matsusaka, J. G. (2020). Disconnected by Legislatures? In Let the People Rule: How Direct Democracy Can Meet the Populist Challenge (pp. 41–52). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvp2n3x4.7
Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice (Belknap). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.
Rosenbloom, D. H., O’Leary, R., & Chanin, J. (2010). The Future of Public Administration and Law in 2020. Public Administration Review, 70, S314–S316. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40984150
Versteeg, M., Horley, T., Meng, A., Guim, M., & Guirguis, M. (2020). The Law And Politics Of Presidential Term Limit Evasion. Columbia Law Review, 120(1), 173–248. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26868346
JMBK.NEWS 