Editorial: Term-limit hypocrites surfacing

Monday, March 22, 1999 | 11:40 a.m.

Many political outsiders who were elected to the House in 1994 owed much of their success to vows of self-imposed term limits. This anti-incumbent message of serving just three, two-year terms resonated with the electorate.

Now that some of the notable members of the 1994 freshman class see that their service in the House will end in 2000, a funny thing has happened. Some suddenly don't have the same fondness for term limits that they once believed were so critical for the health of our democracy.

Take the case of Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash. His term-limit vow propelled his victory over House Speaker Tom Foley, a dramatic upset that symbolized the seeming potency of that issue. But now Nethercutt has been sending out signals to test voter reaction if he decides to break his pledge, noting that "only fools and dead people don't change their minds." In an interview earlier this month with the Associated Press, Nethercutt said this about his 1994 promise: "I wish I hadn't said it. But I believed it. I meant it when I said it."

Nethercutt isn't the only one dripping in hypocrisy, however. Other Republicans who are considering abandoning their term-limits pledge are Reps. Scott McMannis of Colorado and Tillie Fowler of Florida. To show that term-limits hypocrisy is an equal opportunity offender, Rep. Martin Sheehan, a Massachusetts Democrat, also is floating trial balloons that he would like to run again.

Meehan has been recognized as one of Congress' rising stars, especially for his well-publicized bipartisan efforts to get campaign reform passed. But Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby noted recently that Meehan has been visiting media outlets, gauging whether a change of heart will be accepted. "I am obviously more effective today than I was when I arrived," he said. "My district would be better off with a member of Congress who utilizes his or her seniority to the advantage of the district."

Meehan is right that his district would be better served if he was re-elected. That points out one of the follies of term limits -- they set arbitrary limits that do not take into account the quality of the representation a district is receiving. In addition, term limits are anti-democratic. It should be up to the voters to decide whether or not an official should be re-elected. Hopefully other potential candidates will learn from the hard lessons now being felt by some members of the House's 1994 freshman class.