Does the stream of GOP congressional retirements bode ill for Republicans — and Trump?

Fall term exam: The mounting number of Republican House members already announcing retirement a year before their next election is a seriously ominous sign for President Donald Trump’s reelection hopes.

Or, the unusual number of announced incumbent departures this early is a sign of the encouraging regenerative capacities of our democracy as an upstart president continues draining the notorious Washington swamp.

You have 800 words. Discuss.

There are, of course, numerous reasons why any elected representative would decide to punt a political career in the nation’s capital. Personal, of course, can loom large. The $174,000 pay ($224,000 for House speaker) seems immense to regular Americans.

It’s a demanding, time-consuming job frequently involving cross-country travel, much time away from family and, nowadays anyway, a public that can at best be disdaining.

Being in the House minority, as Republicans are now and look likely to remain, is unpleasant duty, to put it mildly. While constituents still expect a full-service member, the minority party has virtually no impact on policy, legislative priorities or the agenda.

And to be candid, the job description for congressional members has changed drastically. Once, they arrived as rookies and learned the ropes by watching. Now, it’s all about photo ops, performance art and image. The actual work matters far less than the ability to attract publicity for uttering provocative things.

Then, there’s this thing called gridlock. Cynical Americans appear to have decided that a paralyzed federal government divided between two parties unable to do much but rename post offices and pass short-term spending bills is preferable to the rave party of an executive and legislature controlled by either Democrats or the GOP. They tried that between 2009 and 2011 and got Obamacare and an economy that even a trillion-dollar Viagra bill couldn’t stimulate.

With two-year terms, representatives are constantly begging for donations or, as it’s politely called, fundraising. The average congressional campaign now runs around $6 million, three times the 2002 cost. Even at that, outside money can swamp their local efforts. And the trend now is for parties to overlay national issues on local elections to drive fundraising and turnout, making any legislative achievements less important.

In the last election cycle when Republicans controlled the House, 39 of them (and 18 Democrats) left office. This time, 22 members of a diminished GOP caucus have already opted out with time for many more to depart if the 2020 outlook grows grim for Republicans and Trump. The historical average for the last 22 elections is 23 departures.

The latest departee was 14-termer Peter King of eastern Long Island. Such departures by familiar names ease the route for challengers, and recent results reveal Republican vulnerabilities in suburban areas like King’s, especially among women.

The current House makeup is 197 Republicans and 233 Democrats, so factoring in pending retirements, the GOP would have to hold every district and gain more than 19 seats to make California’s Kevin McCarthy the new speaker.

That’s a tall task in a presidential election year when the party must defend two dozen Senate seats while attempting to hold the White House occupied by a controversial incumbent with a twitchy Twitter account who’s never enjoyed majority job approval.

For much of this century, many Americans have clamored for term limits on congressional officeholders while hypocritically sending upwards of nine-out-of-10 of their own local members back to Washington.

Those incumbents quickly learn that voters are inveterate whiners and complainers. But absent a scandal or federal indictment, when Election Day comes around, the familiar name and face remain the default choice.

And point of fact, term limits may be a grand rallying cry to arouse donors and unite naysayers. But they’re never going to happen.

First, members of Congress would have to limit their own futures. Holding your breath? Don’t. And second, limiting congressional terms would require a constitutional amendment. In today’s polarized political environment, it’s safe to say two-thirds of the states could never agree on a national pie, let alone term limits on Congress.

But such a steady flow of member departures during each two-year federal election cycle is fast becoming a de facto kind of term limit, flushing out veterans for whatever reasons and replacing them with fresh faces that might have new energy and ideas. Well, conceivably anyway.

Which, of course, pleases established D.C. lobbyists because the arrival of inexperienced newcomers elevates the importance and value of informed locals who know the ropes and issues — and have expense accounts.

Andrew Malcolm writes opinion columns about national politics for McClatchy.

This story was originally published November 26, 2019 at 6:00 AM with the headline "Does the stream of GOP congressional retirements bode ill for Republicans — and Trump?."