Commentary: Congress has become a retirement home

This calcification of political leadership isn’t just a quirk of democracy — it’s a direct result of a system without limits. And it’s undermining the very function of representative government.

If Congress is to reflect the energy, diversity, and evolving concerns of the country it governs, term limits are no longer optional—they’re essential.

The framers of the Constitution envisioned a citizen legislature: individuals who would temporarily serve their country, then return to private life. Instead, we’ve developed a political aristocracy, where seniority — not merit — dictates power, and longevity is rewarded more than leadership.

Today’s congressional leadership is out of step not only with the demographics of the nation, but with its priorities. Aging incumbents are often insulated from real-world consequences. They are less likely to embrace innovation, more likely to resist institutional reform, and far more focused on legacy preservation than legislative experimentation. In a country where the median age is 39, Congress is a gerontocracy, with an average age in the upper chamber now pushing 65.

Meanwhile, approval ratings for Congress hover around 20%. Americans of all political stripes are disillusioned, not just with partisan gridlock, but with a system that seems designed to entrench power rather than challenge it. And yet, thanks to closed primaries, partisan gerrymandering, and fundraising advantages, more than 90% of incumbents win re-election each cycle. Voters may be angry, but the system is stacked against change.

Term limits would fix that.

By capping the number of terms any individual can serve — say, 12 years in the House or Senate — we would force regular turnover, create space for new leadership, and end the cycle of lifetime incumbency. More importantly, we’d remove the incentive to cling to power for power’s sake.

New legislators would enter Washington with urgency, not complacency. They’d be less beholden to special interests and more focused on delivering results within a defined window of public service. Leadership positions wouldn’t be monopolized by octogenarians but shared by a rotating cast of capable, younger lawmakers with contemporary perspectives.

Some opponents argue that term limits would rob Congress of experience. But experience is not the same as wisdom — and longevity does not equal effectiveness. Institutional knowledge can be preserved through staff and transitions. What Congress lacks today is not memory — it’s motivation.

Others claim elections are the ultimate term limit. But incumbents enjoy overwhelming structural advantages: name recognition, donor networks, gerrymandered districts, and institutional power. The ballot box may be free, but it’s far from fair.

If Congress won’t act to limit its own power, it’s time for the states to step in. A constitutional amendment is needed, and under Article V, states have the authority to call a convention to propose one. Several states have already passed resolutions for a term limits amendment. The movement is growing—and it’s being driven not by politicians, but by the people they’re supposed to serve.

This isn’t about ideology. Term limits are supported by a vast majority of Americans — conservatives, progressives, and independents alike. It’s not hard to see why: they promise accountability, renewal, and responsiveness in a system where those values have become scarce.

Congress should reflect the nation — not a relic of its past. If we want a government that thinks boldly, acts decisively, and looks more like America, we need to make room for new leaders. That starts with term limits.

•••

Andrew Kalloch is the Oregon State Chair for U.S. Term Limits and a former Democratic candidate for Congress.