George Will has written a thought-provoking column proposing an amendment to the Constitution that would bar senators from seeking the presidency. Though I agree with Will’s grievances about the performative and corrosive behavior of senators who view the position as a stepping stone to higher office, the question is by nature a political one, not a constitutional one.
I oppose the amendment for largely the same reasons I oppose term limits. One, I don’t think it would make a substantive difference in the behavior of politicians. Whether they’re aiming for another office, or a television career, or a payday as a lobbyist, grandstanding and risk aversion are probably inevitable. Indeed, there are plenty of senators who have no expectations of being president who act like partisan buffoons. Chuck Schumer is no closer to being Cicero than Marco Rubio. Does Will believe that Barack Obama was less suited to be president than Donald Trump? In states with term limits, politicians don’t turn into Cincinnatus, they remain partisans who just keep swapping political offices across government until they find a payday in the private sector. And no matter what voters tell us in polls, they love their incumbents. They hate your incumbents.
Two, as a big fan of counter-majoritarian institutions, I tend to think modern politics puts far too much emphasis on voting, and far too little on embedded constitutional limitations and freedoms. I don’t think that means we should be restricting electoral choices when they exist (other than in the narrow terms; young people who are inexperienced and injudicious or those born outside the country). Telling voters who they can cast a ballot for is an effort to protect them from their own mistakes. That’s not the state’s job. Maybe voters want blowhards and ladder climbers to run the country. Maybe voters would rather senators audition for the presidency than, say, their governors. Seems to me that should be their decision.