Why Should There Be a Presidential Term Limit?

[liberalpragmatist]

I know that with Bush in office, the thought of a third Bush term scares the hell out of us. Also, we've gotten so used to a two-term limit that any discussion about abandoning it or any discussion about its actual merits and demerits tends to get overlooked.

I don't believe that a two-term limit is productive or desirable.

Number one, I believe it is fundamentally undemocratic. If the people of the country want to elect an individual to more than one term, that is their right.

Number two, I believe it hampers second-term presidents. Second terms are almost always wholly unproductive, as the president's "window" for legislative and political action quickly closes. In Bush's case, we're all probably unanimous that this is a good thing. But remember that this backfires on Democratic presidents as well. The possibility of a third-term would reduce the period of a president's "lame-duck" status and make administration more efficient.

Now, many will object on both counts, citing Republican presidents. In the case of the second objection, I doubt Bush's legislative agenda would have been significantly more effective with the prospect of a third term, given the unpopularity of gutting social security and the collapse over Katrina and Iraq.

On the first count, some will object that it would have prevented Democratic presidencies in 1961 and 1993. Recall, however, that while Eisenhower and Reagan would have been eligible for a third term, given their ages and health, it's unlikely they would have tried for a third term. Of the two, Reagan might have been more likely, but recall that we got a third Republican term anyway, under Bush, Sr. Would a third Reagan term really have been that different? I'm not fan of Reagan, but in some ways, Reagan might have been better. He certainly would have extended more support to democratic reformers in Eastern Europe and he probably would have stood up to China far more strongly over Tiananmen Square. Plus, given his rapport with Gorbachev, it's unlikely that the immediate post-Reagan chill in US-Soviet relations would have occurred. As an added bonus, without a George HW Bush presidency, we almost certainly would not have had a George W Bush presidency.

And in 1992, a Democrat, possibly Clinton, although quite possibly someone else, would have won. If it was Clinton, he would likely have won a third term in '00 and we would have avoided the second Bush presidency.

And if Bush did win in '00, and was still in office today, I would love the satisfaction of beating him in '08. Plus, he probably wouldn't even run, given the slide in his approval ratings and GOP pressure for him to leave the scene.

I also ask this of supporters of the 22nd Amendment: if you believe in a two-term limit, why should FDR have been elected to four? Saying those were extraordinary times doesn't answer the question, because what if we face such cirumstances again? The logical answer to that would be that FDR shouldn't have served more than two terms, and one could probably argue that. But such an argument needs to be consistent. You can't support FDR's multiple terms without keeping open the possibility for ALL presidents.