Senators That Should Retire
Posted at 1:19 pm on Tuesday, July 7, 2009, in Politics, and tagged house, senate.
I am not a proponent of term limits — at any level of government1 — but there is something disconcerting with the number of senators that have held their seats for more than a generation.
The House tends to be more radical — either left or right — and the Senate tends to be more centrist. The fact that we do not have substantial reform over any given period of time is indicative of the nature of the Senate, in which when you are elected, you are likely in for life.2 There is no real value — in terms of getting reelected — in rocking the boat or upsetting the status quo.
For the purposes of this list, I will consider those that started serving in the year Ronald Reagan was sworn-in as president (1981) or earlier as the senators from both parties that should collectively retire — and let some new blood in, so we could get some real reform.
Democrats
Max Baucus, since 1978
Robert Byrd, since 1959 (also 101 years old)
Chris Dodd, since 1981
Daniel Inouye, since 1963
Ted Kennedy, since 1962
Patrick Leahy, since 1975
Carl Levin, since 1979
Arlen Specter, since 1981
Republicans
Thad Cochran, since 1978
Chuck Grassley, since 1981
Orrin Hatch, since 1977
Richard Luger, since 1977
- I strongly feel that term limits are inherently undemocratic. The more prominent the position, and the longer the election cycle, the more reconcilable the idea of term limits is, however, if a public wishes to elect a person, the worst crime is to withhold their choice because that person has done such a good job for such a long time. Career politicians are not really the problem; I’d argue stepping-stone politicians are. ↩
- People vote for Senate with an aggravating degree of consistency. The House changes borders every decade, and is a stepping-stone of sorts for senators, governors, and cabinet or administration positions. The Senate is the top job for most politicians. ↩
No related posts.