In many circles, the idea of “term limits” for congressmen is posed as a remedy to many of our national leadership issues.

In today’s Rants and Raves column, someone makes a good point. The concept is mostly an “urban myth.”

It would take a constitutional amendment to establish term limits. It can’t be done by a process of public initiative. 

Term limits has mostly been the talk of candidates, not incumbents.

We have often heard candidates say that they would support term limits if elected. But there’s a common reply when they get in office. They suddenly see the need for “continuity.” They may also see security, a great health care plan and nice perks. 

Even with term limits they would still have the golden parachute.

Term limits might serve the purpose of encouraging lawmakers to work more intently on solving problem and addressing issues instead of running for re-election. That said, it could also make them less beholding to special interests, knowing that an exit plan was fixed.

Now it’s true that the public can oust a lawmaker when he or she comes up for re-election, and that indeed is one definition of term limits. And we have seen a tendency of less patience with lawmakers. Voters have resolved that some should be shown the door.

Given that the concept of term limits, in the purest definition is more urban myth than an element of reality, then that great probability should cause the public to become more involved in the election process. And we’re not talking about just going to the polls but studying issues and holding lawmakers accountable — take them off their pedestals and treat them like hired executives. Engage the process.