I’d be more convinced this was related to term limits if it was routine for modern democracies to keep heads of government around for much longer than eight years. But it’s not. Between politicians getting tired of the job, voters getting tired of the politicians, and party rivals getting tired of waiting, about a decade in office seems to be the most a successful leader can expect. A few manage to go on for longer, but it’s pretty rare.
Reagan would have easily won a third term, and I bet you’d be advocating for term limits in that case.
I’ve been opposed to the 22nd for over 50 years.
By then he was effectively senile. GHWB would have been the next president anyway. And besides, you’d lose that bet.
Which is why we shall instead replace that man of fifty-four with – wait, Trump is in his seventies? When does Hillary Clinton – oh, she turns sixty-nine right before the election? Huh. Who’s the most energetic of those three?
If time in office has aged Obama, then I figure time on planet has aged his potential successors; they only ever looked young compared to, like, Bernie Sanders.
Just Washington-worship. Presidents before FDR didn’t run for third terms because it would have made them look like they thought they were better than GW. That’s also enough time to get sick of the job. That’s also why Congress created the rank of six-star general posthumously just for GW, so the five-stars wouldn’t look uppity.
How do you *think *someone gets elected President? :rolleyes: And why *shouldn’*t We The People have the “liberty” to keep electing him if we think he’s the best choice every time?
Do please notice that there are two parties here, with two candidates in each election, no more than one of whom can be an incumbent. If We The People want to limit the incumbent’s term, we have the opportunity to do so, right on schedule.
Why do you hate HRC? 
I’d rather see presidential, senatorial, and congressional term lengths be the same and synchronized. If a party manages to secure all three and does a good job, more power to them. If they are screw-ups or crooks, they all hang together and you can clean house in one fell swoop.
I would prefer the one 6 year term model for President, for reasons already stated.
Staggering the terms ensures continuity and change is less jarring, as it comes gradually. Some people think that is a good thing.
If people are inherently conservative, why would you want their government to not reflect that? For the US anyway, it’s supposed to be: Of the people, By the people, and For the people. Normally, we want to build in circuit breaker type things into the governing process sot hat we’re not reacting to every issue of the moment and not seeing the bigger picture.
Myself, I view term limits for someone who’s the Head of the (large, powerful) Executive in a strong-executive-branch system more favorably than I would for legislators or for a village mayor. Entrenched senior legislators can be outvoted by their colleagues and a small municipality can have the State call them on the carpet if they get too comfortable, but otherwise they provide experience. The high-level CEO in a “unitary executive”, however, can accumulate too much power, develop a calcified leadership, and allow a generation of officials whose careers depend on one person’s favor to populate the bureaucracy.
Heck, at the legislative level I’m all for unlimited terms for the members’ elections, but for their time sitting as majority/minority leader or presiding officer to be what’s capped. That way you can have experience AND some refreshing of the leadership posts. Do the people from McPorkville like their Assemblyman? He’s the embodiment of civic virtue? Let them keep him 30 years if they wish. But he may only be Speaker for 8 of them. If he’s that good he’ll stay influential.
JRDelirious, I think you make good points (and I couldn’t help thinking of Mike Madigan when reading your second paragraph).
I’ve heard that repealing the 22nd amendment is his first order of business for Donald Trump should he win.
Be careful what you wish for.
I am for keeping the 22nd in place. As it is, I believe we invest too much power into the President. So, limiting their term to 2 x 4 keeps us from sliding into coronation ceremonies.
However, when it comes to Congress and the Senate, I would make some adjustments.
The hazard I see with short term limits is that the legislator does not get the opportunity to build experience and political power (yes, that is needed to be effective as a legislator). The risk of short term limits is that this creates a vacuum that is filled by un-elected others in support and lobbying roles, who are not subject to the term limits. So, even though I would be in favor of term limits for legislators, I would want them to be longer (20 years?).
Now, in addition, I would also change the regular elected term for US Congress members. As it stands now, in order to get re-elected every 2 years, they are effectively fund-raising and campaigning some 50% of the time cite. So, let’s give them 4 years instead, on a staggered schedule so we are not re-electing everyone at once. Then they will have at least a couple of years to concentrate on being a legislator.
Thread relocated to Great Debates.
I am pretty sure this the greatest combined age of the two major Presidential candidates ever.
True but when it does happen it can be pretty damn awful. A premier (equivalent of governor) in my state was in power for about 26 years. By the end he and his government were totally corrupt, they had come to regard opposition as inherently illegitimate, they were turning the police into political tools, the whole bit. It’s how dictatorships are born.
I would be in favor of eliminating term limits, as long as the incumbent still has to go through the primary process every time they are re-elected. New ideas in politics are a good thing. I would be okay with Obama having a third term. But he would need to beat Hillary and Bernie in the primary. Even if he still won, he would probably learn something from them about what the people want. We don’t want to end up with politicians for life who get everything they want. Because that is dictatorship.
Firstly, and I think you understand this, I don’t mean conservative in the left/right sense. I mean conservative in the sense of sticking with what exists. An entrenched leader can be from the left or right.
Secondly, it’s a cool idea an’ all, but “Of the people, By the people, and For the people” is in this respect an oxymoron. The longer someone stays in power:
[ul]the less they remain “of the people”,
[li]the more they consolidate power to themselves and the less they permit government “by the people” and[/li][li]the more they develop a sense of entitlement that means they govern for themselves and not "for the people.[/ul][/li]
Pure democracy is all very well but it ignores certain bugs in the Mark I human brain.
If that’s the case, it lessens their chance of being reelected anyway. It should be left up to “We the People.”