No way-Clinton may be absolutely reviled by the hard right, but he has way more charisma than Bush. And he’s so much better with people-at least he wasn’t constantly making us the laughingstalk of the international community!
At any rate, I think some hardcore right wingers were talking about this at the end of Reagan’s second term. Now THERE’S a scary thought!
In principle there are good arguments for repealing the 22nd Amendment. In practice, it hasn’t limited the people I’d like to see re-elected. Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan were too old. Clinton left in semi-disgrace. Nixon left in total disgrace. The 22nd Amendment may deprive us of a desirable President some day, but it hasn’t happened yet.
I do believe that Roosevelt ought not to have been President in 1944, due to ill health. But, that’s not because of serving too many terms. It’s because he was too sick to handle the job of President.
The nanny-conservatives think they know what is best for us. They are entitled to their opinions on what makes a good or bad leader but those beliefs shouldn’t be allowed to limit our choices.
I wasn’t aware that “nanny-conservatives” came up with the 22nd Amendment …
Answer me this. What is the downside if Americans choose a president for the third term?
Um, not to be a party pooper, but any concept that had the concurrence of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson et alia is a concept I tend to give some value to.
The 22nd Amendment was passed with support from both parties because FDR violated the Constitution by running for office in 1940 and 1944. Not the written one that we always argue over, but the unwritten one, a concept the British understand far better than we do. For reasons having mostly to do with his ego, FDR was unwilling to live by the rule established almost 150 years earlier, so we wrote it into the Constitution so no one else could be similarly ego-driven into violating a tenet of government considered important enough that no one tried to violate it prior to 1940.
This makes a lot more sense than a term limit for an individual person. I would apply it to all political offices, not just the President - no Senate district can elect someone from the same party more than two elections in a row, etc. Good to mix everything up a little.
I think a better idea would be to only put names on ballots. Omit the party designation. Make people know the candidates they are voting for, rather than just voting straight party line.
Just to clear things up on this point. I was not advocating this idea, just using it as a hypthetical to respond to Jeff’s post.
There are some decent reasons for a restriction. For one thing, it brings new viewpoints into the parties. Consider if Clinton had lost to Bush instead of being forced to step down? How does the Democratic party shed his influence? I suspect it would get very messy.
Plus, incumbents have tremendous advantages, especially Presidents. They have the weight of the office, awesome fundraising ability, and familiarity going for them. So it’s not a bad idea to force a turnover occassionally.
On the other hand, it also seems kind of stupid to force the guy with the most experience out of office on a technicality, especially in a time of crisis.
I am referring to the supporters of the 22nd Amendment rather than its creators. They don’t take the democratic side so they are conservative and they presume to tell us what’s best for us so they are paternalistic. On this issue at least they are “nanny conservatives”.
If anyone is wondering why liberals talk about slavery so much let me tell you why. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Andrew Jackson all owned slaves. Is slavery a concept DSYoungEsq would tend to give some value to? Obviously not and that’s why it’s a convenient instrument for pointing out the errors in conservative thinking. Just because these dead white guys believed something doesn’t make it true. Nor does age give a tradition validity. How about we stick to reasonable arguments?
Sam: That’s probably the best argument I’ve seen for term limits, although it is equally applicable to the president’s second term as it would be to a hypothetical third term. Not much that can realistically done about it though.
Yes, but term limits imply that voters can’t make the right decisions for themselves.
That gets a bit iffy when the man in the seat can manufacture crises at will.
I’m on the bandwagon, I dislike the 22nd, for the stated reasons, but I’ll tell you this, if ever there is a Clinton on my ballot, I’m going to get a chair, stand on it, and take a nice healthy whiz on the thing. Can’t effin stand clinton, (for completely personal reasons) not even a little.
That gets a bit iffy when the man in the seat can manufacture crises at will.
That only works once. One good example was LBJ. Tonkin rallied the nation around him, and his failure to win the war led to his defeat. If we start suffering more attacks and Bush says we need to invade another country, it won’t benefit him in any way. He knows that too. Which is why he’s concentrating on declaring victory and passing tax cuts.
Two more words: Ted Kennedy.
That hasn’t stopped Bush making snarling noises toward Syria, Iran and North Korea.
The only reason it’s might not to work again for Bush is that Iraq was a spectacular fuckup.
Your arguments in all the threads you’ve posted to today consist of simple gainsaying. It’s difficult to work out what your position actually is on anything.
Um, FDR was not the first person to run for a third term. Teddy Roosevelt, IIRC, ran for a third term as well (although on a minority ticket and lost). FDR was simply the first person to win a third term.
Secondly, while there was a “custom” not to serve more than two terms, it in no way had the force of law. Roosevelt didn’t “violate the Constitution” (especially the “unwritten one,” as we don’t have one).
Zev Steinhardt
There’s a difference between law and precedent. Washington and the others never suggested any such thing as term limits, as far as I know (if you have a cite on that I’d appreciate it :)), but by only doing two terms Washington set a precedent that survived in fact until FDR.
FDR running for President the third time was perhaps unnecessary, but we were just coming out of the Depression and there was a war on in Europe. There was a fairly good reason for him to run that time. The fourth time, IMO, was absolutely essential. Again, as far as I know, we have NEVER intentionally changed administrations in the middle of a war. Truth is, Johnson could have been re-elected, he just chose not to run.
I think the reasons why the 22nd Amendment were passed were good ones, though. The Republicans hated the fact that they couldn’t win against FDR, and the Democrats saw the possibility that the same situation could arise and happen to them. It keeps things balanced, and it keeps one man from having too much power.
Imagine, for example, that Bush gets re-elected in a landslide (not likely, but work with me here), and his popularity is such that he could win easily in 2008. Would those same Democrats who would have the Amendment repealed so Bill Clinton could run be happy about another four years of Bush? No way.
The people running to take Strom Thurmond’s place both ran on “being exactly like Strom Thurmond”.