And then we can start the debate about just exactly when the one-term President officially becomes a lame duck who shouldn’t be allowed to nominate any judges.
My guess would be, as soon as the oath of office is administered.
I’m with JRDelirious, I think the presidency is where term limits do the least harm. A single legislator only has so much power, even after decades in office. Nature provides term limits in any event, so there’s generally some churn in legislatures and the like.
The primaries are run by the parties, though. The reason the incumbent rarely has a primary challenger is that no one from the party is foolish enough to run against them. I’m not sure you could make this happen by a rule. Force someone else to run in the primaries?
In Maine, incumbent state legislators usually do have challengers from their own parties, and still have to go through the primary.
Except my whole point is that it doesn’t. The longer you stay in office the wider goes your web of influence and ability to manipulate truth and perception, and arrange gerrymandering and undermine opposition powerbases etc.
Nitpick: There was a President who ran for a third term before FDR did — FDR’s distant cousin Teddy Roosevelt. (He hadn’t served two full terms when he ran for a 3rd term, but he’d served for 7 and a half years.)
But presidential candidates don’t. Why do you think that is?
I would say that it is because Main state legislator is a relatively small-time political position, so the relative power/name recognition/finance difference between the incumbent and the challenger are much smaller. That’s not the case for US President. Even incredibly well known and well-financed candidates are going to struggle mightily against any but an incredibly unpopular incumbent president. I bet the majority of Maine residents don’t even know who their state rep is.
I favor term limits for every one. In fact, one six year term for president and senators and maybe three 2 year terms for reps. Why? Because they might be more likely to worry more about the people than about their own reelections. You cannot worry about a tea party challenge if you are not up for election in the future. Just think, you don’t have to worry about raising money. I recall on representative saying how he had to raise $30,000 every week of his two year term. This week, next week, week after. And if he took a week vacation, $60,000 the following week. Maybe representatives should have just one six year term too.
Nitpicking the nitpick. Grover Cleveland ran three times, and actually won the popular vote each time. His electoral loss in the election of 1888 could be described as :dubious:
Term limits for Congress are unconstitutional; they can only be implemented by Amendment.
I actually agree that it should be repealed, but for different reasons than the OP.
Term limits create an expectation that a successful politician will serve a “full set” of terms. Parties will tend to let a politician of their own party hang on until he’s term-limited out, even if it’s W Bush. We need to be willing to toss some politicians after one term, even if that means an intra-party challenge.
A few others also tried (or at least hoped) but never made it to the general election. Ulysses S. Grant actively campaigned for the Republican nomination in 1880, Grover Cleveland looked into going to the convention in 1896 but backed out when he realized that the Free Silver crowd had taken over the party, and Harry Truman (who, like TR, served almost two full terms) made it as far as the New Hampshire primary in 1952 (after the 22nd Amendment, which he alone was exempt from). IIRC Woodrow Wilson also spent the last four years of his life believing that the party was going to bring him back from retirement.
I believe the OP started this thread with the idea of a third and possibly a fourth Billy/Barry term. Our country isn’t really left of center though, it’s more of a moderate right and if the right Republican candidate comes along then it might not be a good thing for Democrats.
I admit I gave that impression. But my desire to repeal the 22nd really has nothing to do with that.
I could be convinced that President is an exceptional case, but I’m against term limits for Senators and Representatives. Do we really want a large percentage of our representatives to be lame ducks?
People often say that term limits would reduce corruption. I think that it would make it worse.
Currently, officeholders have to think about the next election and whether or not they’re keeping their base happy. If someone starts their term knowing they won’t have to face the voters again, and knowing that they’re definitely going to be out of a job in 4 (or 6 or whatever) years, they may totally ignore the desires of their supporters and instead do things that help potential future employers regardless of how it affects voters.
Yes, I know they often do that anyway, but term limits wouldn’t make it any better and would probably make it worse.
I agree, davidm. Legislative term limits are popular among those who don’t understand that politicians are real people with careers and ambition. They’re a terrible solution to whatever imagined problem they’re meant to solve, and they actually make legislatures function somewhat less well.
That’s true, but you have to look at all the alternatives. Not that I’m in favor of legislative term limits. I am, however, in favor of a lot of turnover. Incumbents have been losing a lot more and this is resulting in Congress functioning poorly. It also makes the bureaucracy more powerful, since Congress has little experience to provide proper oversight, and Presidents seem to have lost interest in doing so, even though it’s in their own branch.
So what we have is a shadow government made up of unelected officials and advisors who when one incumbent goes down, they just go work for another one. And continue to be the actual decisionmakers. What’s funny is how many of these people who actually know what’s going on are like 25 years old.
The only solution of course is a government with well defined objectives and limits, and constant vigilance by the whole of the electorate, rather than special interests making sure they get a cut. Democracy is ever evolving and hopefully in 100 years we’ll be doing things better, just like we’re doing things better now than we did 100 years ago.
Except…why care about the people if you don’t have to keep them happy enough to re-elect you? If every term is one-and-done, then every Senator and Rep would be spending those years lining his or her pockets and lining up their next job. I fail to see the improvement.
nm
Maybe there should be term limits on them. I’d be less opposed to term limits for legislators if staffers and lobbyists were limited as well.
Exactly. The proposal shows an imperfect understanding of what we elect these people to do.