ShareThis Page

Trib editorial: Capital Hill sexual-harassment allegations may open door to term limits

| Wednesday, Dec. 6, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
U.S. Rep. John Conyers (Getty Images North America)
U.S. Rep. John Conyers (Getty Images North America)

Allegations of sexual harassment coming out of Capitol Hill these days — and the mea culpas from the accused — may conceivably lead to the two words most dreaded, if not excoriated, by the all-too-comfortably entrenched in Congress: term limits.

Consider the case of Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., first elected in 1964 and re-elected in 2014 to his 26th term. Former staffers have accused him of sexual harassment. BuzzFeed reported that he settled a wrongful dismissal complaint from a former employee in 2015 for $27,000 in exchange for a confidentiality agreement.

Mr. Conyers, 88, resigned from Congress Tuesday, the first Capitol Hill lawmaker to give up his job amid an unrelenting wave of sexual-misconduct allegations in American workplaces.

Nevertheless, Conyers has managed to remain the longest-serving House member representing the economic disaster that is today's Detroit.

Some “lifers” in Congress argue that their “experience” sets them apart from any newbies who, under term limits, would come and go. In reality, new challengers — and fresh thinkers — typically slam against an almost impermeable wall of incumbency, which allows those behind it to accumulate mounds of cash. In the halls of congressional power, there are few champions for term limits.

Today's highly charged sexual-harassment allegations, however, may pry open the door to a meaningful discussion about this issue, which may actually lead to something positive.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me