That's somewhat beside the point -- no less true, mind -- but I think there's a stronger point you missed: if "the other side" gets voted in, they just do the same damn thing.
At least, that's what I parsed as "the same will happen".
Lottery democracy keeps sounding more and more promising.
I'd love to see a study of potential systems of that, and how they'd be gamed (because let's not fool ourselves, every system can and will be gamed), and how well that can be mitigated in turn. Systems, because it wouldn't work quite as we have things now, an unspecialized candidate will need more a few more experts to do their job effectively -- though given the knowledge of some in Congress, maybe this isn't actually very important. Anyway, somehow or another, their specialists, consultants, secretaries, whatever, will get influenced, picked from a pool of interests, that sort of thing -- it doesn't cure the problem, it's just more things to tweak.
Note that term limits set an arbitrary ceiling without justification; it's just some random number. The most likely effect is that, those that can do good, won't be around long enough to accomplish much, while making everyone as a whole that much more susceptible to lobbying -- a constant stream of newbies, diluting cultural knowledge. Not that all of their pageantry is exactly helpful or valuable, but whatever, they're a self-managed group, if it gets in the way they can change it themselves.
Tim