I think it would rock. Of course, he wouldn’t be elected President-for-Life. He’d be elected President every four years until he wasn’t.
Yeah, I’d probably trace this to 1994 or so. The incoming GOP wanted to get things done and felt they had a strong mandated, then they discovered that the President is powerful enough to put heavy brakes on the Congress more times than not.
After that you have several government lock-downs because of budget fights between the GOP and the Democrats (and especially the GOP Congress and the Democrat White House) the Clinton impeachment followed by the controversial Presidency of George W. Bush.
Most of the old timers still have good working relationships. I think most of them from the 60s, 70s, and 80s, recognized that while the other party was the opposition, it makes sense to have friends throughout congress because eventually you’ll need help from people on both sides of the aisle for legislation that is important to you and your constituents.
At the very best Clinton would make it to 2004, I’m not entirely certain he would win in 2000 despite his strong approval ratings and polling.
By 2004 his heart problems would have cropped up and if he was still President I genuinely think he would step down because of that.
There’s a reason that even though we never had any term limits until the 1950s only one man ever exceeded two, and many never served more than one. It’s an incredibly stressful job that most aren’t lying when they say they’re glad it’s over.
It depends on the opponents and other variables, of course (maybe he could have stopped 9/11, maybe not), but when it comes to pure political talent and campaigning ability I can’t see Bubba Vs. Dubya as even being a contest.
I think you’re right that his health combined with the stress of the job probably would have forced him to step down in 2004, though.
Make that 3. I’m in.
It’s obvious that most so far are willing to place a lot more faith in and elevate these mortal beings to levels that I am not.
If you mean that most of us would prefer that the electorate exercise their responsibilities (and suffer accordingly when they fail on their efforts) rather than to rely on an artificially imposed constraint with no particular logic behind it, (what should the limit be? Why are 8 years or 12 years or 16 years better than 2 years or 40 years?), then you are probably correct.
If you mean that we have more faith in the elected officers than you, then you have not read the responses.
Anyone here familiar with that classic Brit-com, “Yes, Minister”? Or later, “Yes, Prime Minister”? It demonstrates precisely the issue at hand.
That’s not obvious to me. What I do see is an awareness that Washington D.C. is not run purely by the elected officials, but also by a wide variety of people in non-elected positions who have potential to be corrupt or to manipulate those who are elected. I see people who are concerned that with no potential for re-election, and no need to worry about what the constituents think, there are many elected officials who would be more open to bribes or otherwise grabbing everything that they can get. And I see people who would prefer the freedom to pick and choose between all the candidates who want a particular job, and not be restricted to those whithout experience in it.
Personally, I’m a status quo-ist. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. So I would be reluctant to repeal the term limits on the President, and even more reluctant to impose them on the Congress.
But if I had the power to make one change to how Congress-folk are elected–I’d change the way that redistricting takes place, so that there was a lot less potential for manipulation to maintain some congressmembers in safe seats while guarenteeing that other districts are funny shaped so that members of one party are more likely to live in some districts than others.
I personally think that lobbyists get a bad name. Yes, many of them are corrupt. But some Senators have constituencies numbering in the millions and each House member has a constituency of around 600,000 on average. I think strong lobbying groups allow people who are highly interested in certain issues to get their voice heard by the powers that be in a manner that citizens acting alone never would.
Different how?
There have been efforts in that direction. Somehow, it never seems to get anywhere. :mad:
Caged death-match! 
Of course, there are other alternatives.
I’m reminded of a chapter in Ambrose Bierce’s Lands Beyond the Blow, about a country where the chief executive, at the end of his ten-year term, is beheaded, on the grounds that anyone who has wielded supreme executive power for so long must have committed enough crimes to warrant death even if none can be specifically proved.
There was another country where, at the end of any war, the veterans are honored in a public ceremony, then deprived of their sight with hot irons, issued sledgehammers and sealed in a chamber for ten days. If, at the end of that time, any of the dead is found to have an unbroken bone, the survivors are boiled in wine; if not, smothered in butter. If this sounds harsh, consider it from the POV of a writer who lived through the period when all Americans had to suffer the immense political influence of the G.A.R.
:rolleyes: That would be more persuasive if most lobbyists were not corporate mouthpieces.
I have no idea what “most” lobbyists are. There are many lobbyists for the elderly, for Veterans, for the environment, for teachers, for union workers, etc. I certainly won’t deny a great many are corporate interests–and this won’t be the most popular idea, but corporate interests have a valid stake in the democratic process as well, and major interests like the U.S. auto industry represent hundreds of thousands of jobs.
I also won’t deny that a great many have improper relationships with congresspersons, and that is a significant problem, one that should be more aggressively dealt with. But I do think people sometimes unfairly demonize the act of lobbying in general.
I’ve been wondering lately if Representatives’ terms should be extended to 3 years. Maybe even 4.
The problem for Reps under the present 2-year term is that as soon as they’re in, they have to start their campaigns for next time. Give these people a little time to think less about themselves, and to think about our country.
I guess it’s pie in the sky.
:dubious: For this purpose, let’s define that by funding, access and influence, as opposed to raw numbers.
I support term limits for the same reason I support separation of powers and checks and balances–they diffuse the awesome power inherent in positions of government.
The powers of government are so great that it’s very easy for incumbents to rig the process in their favor–by doling out favors, threatening punishment, taking advantage of free media coverage and free franked mail, and most odious of all, by gerrymandering the districts in which they run (or, in the case of Congress, by having allies in the legislature gerrymander on their behalf). Term limits are the only practical way to redress the balance.