In the 1800s it was common for 40 percent or more of the House to be complete rookies at the start of a new Congress. Short "careers" in Congress were expected and accepted. People served because their communities wanted them to and then they gladly went home to return to their business.
It was a “civic duty” like jury duty rather than a “career”. By the mid to late 1800s, being a politician was seen as too low-brow for the wealthy elite who could manipulate from behind the scenes. Teddy Roosevelt was the first of a new breed for the new century - rich, elite educated and connected.
The other politicians, Tammany Hall, et al who established their power and garnered wealth through politics, thought they could scupper him by making him VP.
But are term limits the problem? Would they fix the blatant disregard to do anything other than party lines? I don't think it is the full answer, even if I believe it should still occur.
The framers considered 2 years about the maximum a "citizen legislator" could stay away from their farms, businesses and homes. Term limits are needed.
Agreed. And across the board with any federally elected officer there should be NO private business. If you can't go to DC and spend 100% of your time there focusing on the job of solving problems for the American People, then don't run. We need to reverse Citizens United and fix a lot of things.
And I believe a ban on lobbying once they have left. It ain't an internship or apprenticeship for corporate America, you are there for the people that elected you.
Those people were also accustomed to serving on committees under rules of order in so many other contexts. Today that really only applies to those who lived in frat houses in college.
Yes. As I recall that was always the plan, the intent. A duty to do your part for a term (or two) then leave.