I've been reading some terribly dorky stuff as of late, and among these readings I've stumbled back into the Federalist Papers1. This is in no order, mind you, but as topics interest me. Right now, for some crazy reason, I'm pretty interested in finding out more about the presidency.
In Federalist 71, "The Duration in Office of the Executive," and 72, on the same subject, my pal Alexander Hamilton writes about the term of the president. Hamilton and co-conspirators John Jay and James Madison (today, they'd be his co-bloggers, and the Federalist would appear on HuffPo, under the name P00blius) wanted badly to make sure the president stayed in office long enough to actually get things done. They were fighting two battles, here: one, to make sure that the president's term was actually for four years, not the single year that had been proposed by some; and two, to make sure that the president was eligible for re-election. Both of these items, which seem so sensible now, were highly controversial in an age when even having a president was often seen as tantamount to allowing monarchism an in-road to America.
I'm going to come back in another post to the wisdom of the four-year term, but for now, I want to talk about unlimited re-election, which Hamilton advocated. He said (I'm paraphrasing) that only morons would limit a term so as to keep someone with actual executive experience from running again, and that these same morons would, by placing term limits on the presidency, ensure that men elected to the office would have no inducement to good behavior in a finite term.
You may know the story from here: the Constitution, with no term limits for presidents, was ratified. George Washington served only two terms, which set a precedent that was mostly adhered to until the early 20th century, when Teddy Roosevelt tried to get a third bite at the presidential apple on the Bull Moose Party ticket. His cousin Franklin, of course, succeeded where TR had failed, and won himself not three but four terms as president. Shortly after his success, his critics succeeded in passing the 22nd Amendment, which limited presidents to two full terms and/or ten years in office.
I'm starting to think that was a very bad idea.
Dwight Eisenhower was the first president to be limited by the 22nd Amendment. He was terrifically popular (Time's 1959 Man of the Year article is telling) at the end of his second term, and though his health wasn't the best, he probably could have -- and maybe even would have -- run for and won a third term, particularly against a relatively unknown second-term Democratic Senator. But the limit held, and Eisenhower, who was initially troubled that presidents would be rendered lame by the amendment, "decided that his unique lame-duck position was one of strength, not of weakness.
But in our last two presidents, we've found two terribly difficult problems with the 22nd Amendment.
First, there's the presidency of George W. Bush. Bush's approval ratings have hit the lowest ever recorded in recent weeks, but that holds almost no repercussions for Bush himself. What would he have done differently, if he knew he was going to again face the electorate that now despises him so? Maybe I'm assuming too much to say that he'd run for a third term, but -- I sense that the work of this administration is far from done, in the hearts and minds of those who still believe they are the only ones standing between America and total annihilation.
Bush is a unique case, in that his vice president (for the first time since Charles Curtis left office when Herbert Hoover was voted out) has no eye on the presidency, so for the past four years, he has been personally devoid of any direct electoral interest. This has freed him up to do, well, quite a lot of damage.
Should he have had the right to run for a third term? (I, for one, would have delighted in casting my ballot against that man again, since I feel right now that he's been untouchable to me since 2004).
Bill Clinton is our second example. Clinton's second term was a partisan fight par excellence, but he left office more popular than anyone. It included, among other moves, the Congressionally-opposed 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo, which I doubt Clinton would have undertaken had he been about to face the electorate for round three.
Clinton was famously worried about his legacy during those years, and this -- which inspired, but was not, it seems, inspired by the same drive to do good that Eisenhower described -- pushed him toward holding the 2000 Camp David Summit between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat.
So which is better -- having a lame-duck president who does whatever he wants, because, hey, who cares, what are they gonna do, fire him (Hamilton had Bush nailed on this point. Also Nixon. Also Reagan. Also Clinton)? Or having a lame-duck president so concerned about how he'll be viewed by history that he is in theory, if not fact, running for a third term anyway, not at all divorced from the will of the public?
Neither case seems good to me, and though I'm not sure I've ever written these words before, I agree with Ronald Reagan that the 22nd Amendment should be repealed. Presidents should have the chance to run, and run, and run -- because we, the people, should have every chance to re-elect or reject them.
1 My copy of the Federalist Papers, by the way, is one of the most satisfying used books I own: bought the day after my birthday in an independent bookshop, with a pleasing musty scent to it and a pricetag of $2.95 -- both things I adored that day, as I was hungover enough to have discovered the book by laying my head upon it while I waited for friends to finish their shopping. Now I keep it on my bedside shelf. I just went up like ten points on the Dork Index, right? Good.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
Come find me if you'd like to chat more on this subject.
On the other hand, as to 22nd amendment, I guess the thing I think is that it is a protection of minority rights. It's true that the majority has a right to be governed by who it wants, but it's also true that minorities therefore often have no right whatsoever to ever be governed by who they want. This is tricky to balance. But by rotating who's in charge, you get a different set of minority opinions/biases/techniques and hence you have a higher probability of sometimes accidentally satisfying a minority (which is really the only hope they have--just random chance).
Moreover, suppose Bush were popular. It's pretty easy to conceive of a Bush variant that did enough things differently in order to get re-elected and yet who was still engaged in some pretty evil dark things we're looking forward to seeing fall out of office. We need in there with a fresh set of eyes to do an audit. Such an alternate-universe Bush might be hard to get out of office if he manipulated terror alerts just so... it is possible that the reason that wasn't done this time around was merely that they didn't think it mattered or was worth the effort. The need to clean house and get an independent auditor in on a regular basis should not be discounted as a reason for term limits.
And, finally, the entire design of the government was based on the notion that inefficiency was the safeguard against tyrrants. That is, if government is made to work slowly through checks and balances, it is harder for it to become bad without someone having a way to stop it. People like Perot who have wanted to make the government ultra-efficient have always scared me, even though the basic idea of having "efficient government" has sometimes appealed at a gut level. The longer in office, the more "efficient" a President might be, and I'm not sure that's good for the country. Moreover, as noted in the Bush Presidency, they became more and more bold/brazen as they found more things they could get away with.
All of this argues that the 22nd isn't such a bad thing.
But I wouldn't be so opposed to many years if they were broken up in continuity. See my thoughts on limiting term frequency.
I understand your position; restricting the terms that can be served seemingly defies the democratic ideal. But, I don’t think it really does. Reagan might have been popular enough to win a third term; what a nightmare that would have been.
I think in the end, limiting term limits is a tradeoff like so many things in the real world. Where term limits are concerned I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
We’ve seen recently via Congress what can happen when governmental representatives stagnate; the turnover is far too little in Congress. A democracy needs fresh eyes every so often, and term limits ensure that we get them. We don’t always agree with who sees through those new eyes, but at least we don’t stagnate completely.
You say, “I agree with Ronald Reagan that the 22nd Amendment should berepealed.” I think you should think harder about agreeing with Reagan. Beyond that, the idea that a president might act differently if he were “about to face the electorate for round three”, is based on the assumption every president would WANT to run for a third term, which merely means that it is only a partial support for not limiting terms. Also, consider some of Bush’s actions during his FIRST term; they exhibited the “…hey, who cares, what are they gonna do, fire him” attitude you describe, and he DID plan to run again. There are no guarantees created by eliminating term limits.
RATED
it seems as if removing the restriction could potentially at least be a legal foot in the door for dictatorship.
i firmly some presidents get a second term because voters know 8 is all they get and, after all, how much more damage can they do? give 'em another four (by not voting) and bring on the next guy. bush probably fits in this category.
it is our duty and obligation to vote and fulfilling that obligation by tossing scoundrels out is our best guarantee of freedom.
I think history shows that most second terms are pretty disasterous, and maybe you are correct that one big reason for that is the immediate lame duck status. Perhaps a single 6 year term would suffer from the same lame duck issue. I just fear what some unscrupulous politians would do to retain power if they could have more than two terms.
The thing is, with witch-hunting being as it was with Clinton, it's nearly impossible to sustain a President for more than two terms.
I think it's a wonderful idea if we get a GREAT President in office, keeping him/her there. But is it realistic given the scrutiny these people are put under? Look how much the last couple of Prez's have aged in 8-years.
Much to ponder. I know I didn't answer the question.
Take Care, great as always.
(rated)
Greg
I think, in an ideal world, repelling the 22nd amendment would be a good idea. Yet, our world is not ideal. Political dirty tricks put this man into office; who is to say it won't happen again? If everything was transparent and legal, I'd say put the power to re-elect solely into the hands of the people. Trust the populace to do the right thing, right? But they didn't do the right thing in 2004 and we've paid hell for it (unless someone rigged Ohio but the results were the same regardless). Until we can have clear election reform, which I don't see happening any time soon, the amendment needs to stay in place.
You thoughts?
No matter how unpopular Bush has become, he would have been nearly impossible to beat---for a million reasons---but one that many Americans would have fallen back on is simply "the devil you know."
And, for a third term, he might have chosen a viable running mate, one in position to succeed him. (I'll never understand why they didn't do this for his second term. I'm just happy that they didn't.)
Of course, lack of a viable successor was always "evidence #1" for my thinking that Bush had no plans of ever departing.
And I think the country can only tolerate impeachment every so many years, and Bush was somewhat exploiting that having been “used up” over the silly Lewinski matter... taking a free pass.
It's all about checks and balances. Term limits are seen often as a fairness issue, a free speech issue, a voter issue. But really they are one of the famed checks and balances [I don't know how to use that in singular since I don't know if it's a check or a balance, but it's one of those]. It's a failsafe that says no matter how bad it gets, it will change after a certain time. With the demonstrated possibility of a lazy Congress and/or lazy electorate, that's our last and most important safeguard.
In the post and comments, there's a recurring theme of whether term limits free the president from public opinion, and whether *that's* a good thing. Bush keeps cropping up in examples, as if many people are judging the idea of unlimited terms solely by whether it would have kept Bush in office, or not.
But we should consider these ideas structurally, not just in terms of whether they would give a result we like. (If you do that, then there is no rule of law, only whatever gives me the results I like today.) In that case, the question becomes, is there ever a time when the president should be unaccountable to the public?
I can think of no justification, in a democratic republic, for the president to govern without regard for pubic consent. This doesn't mean that he or she has to be a slave to any given segment of the public, or even the simple majority. It means understanding where the public is and making a case for why the nation should go from where it is to where the prez thinks it needs to be. (Read FDR's pre-WWII Fireside Chats on www.americanrhetoric.com for some fine examples.) The president has to build public support by making a case for a given objective or policy.
Regarding unlimited terms, I don't see how this structure makes the president unaccountable to public opinion. (Not that anybody was arguing that.) I'm concerned that the flow of money in such an incumbency would hinder better alternatives from success, but that's a different structural issue.
It seems the advantage to term limits that many have listed is presidential freedom, during the second term, from what the public wants. And that's OK for a Clinton but not for a Bush? Come on. I don't think that cutting the executive free from the need for accountability to the public is ever justifiable in a democracy. If there are justifications for term limits, this isn't one of them.
In democracies, the people do not always want the right thing. If *you* want the right thing, however you define that, to triumph every time regardless of public consent, then you probably favor some type of what R. Dahl called Guardianship government -- not democracy.
What is the first thing that a person does when he gets elected? He starts running for reelection. So if the crap needs to hit the fan they will weigh the good of the country against reelection. If he is a single term, then he can do what he needs to do. Yes we will still have them thinking about how history will remember them, but we have that now.
Unlimited terms is great, as long as it's your guy. I liked Bush, you liked Clinton. One of us is wrong. Which one gets the 3rd term?
So what's the difference between unlimited terms and a king? 10 elections by stupid people.
Being in charge of the people who actually carry out policy gives him a leg up, as we saw in the way that Bush and Nixon used the Justice department to go after their political enemies. The cult of personality factor also functions as a big advantage for the President, especially in the era of 24/7 cable news. That cult of personality is what led the American people to support FDR's attempts to do an end run around the Supreme Court and the DC press corps to decide that Bush using criminal prosecutions as a political tool was a non-story.
Given the fact that Cheney, Addington, Rove, et. al. have successfully carried out Nixon's revenge with a de facto establishment of a Unitary Executive (which the founders explicity rejected), I can't think of a time in our history - except maybe when FDR was trying to pack the Supreme Court - when strengthening the power of the executive seemed less practical.
This was a very good post, Saturn, and I welcome the debate. I just disagree. Strongly.
Interesting that so many of the Founders shared the biblical reluctance to kings. To paraphrase God (who Hamilton thought he was most of the time) to the Israelites: "You want a king? Are you nuts?"
It's easy to come down on either side of this issue. I might be more in favor of unlimited terms IF there was an easier way to rid ourselves of idiots like Bush. Though it certainly comes with its own set of dangers, the "vote of no-confidence" has had a powerful appeal to me over the last eight years.
And while you're remaking the system, I'd like to suggest the Justice Department be removed from the Executive Branch and placed in the Judicial Branch -- at least until the worst of the political slime can be removed.
Hope this isn't seen as glomming onto somebody with more writing talent and accomplishment, but I think my argument is as valid.
Enjoyed this, as the issue is near and dear to me.
BBL
Furthermore, the George Bush example ("who cares what I do, I'm done") is inaccurate. All presidents try and end on a high note, Bush included. Bush just looks like he's screwing around because, well, he's George Bush.
Also, to say that Bush's screwing around was encouraged by the fixed lifespan on a presidency in its second term is not accurate either. Don't you remember his first four years?!
In the "what would you lobby for" Open call, I argue for a legislative change to the 14th amendment, which I actually think has less possibility of happening than your change to 22, but would have a much greater impact on politics in this country.
PS- Ive been reading a must old Federalist Papers purchased at a garage sale for years. I find the Pentatuch easier to read, and that is so dull I want to claw my eyes out! Good for you that you can keep it near you for regular reading!
Glad you're here.
1. i would prefer 6 year terms.
2. i would really desire limited campaigning, like our friends in England. Perhaps then we wouldn't have our elected officials distracted for so long. And the American people wouldn't suffer so long.
3. Repealing is tempting. My fear is that Americans will buy the lie again.
Thanks for putting this out there. Be well.
Never heard it expressed better. Let's just hope that after the orgasm, it's not just Democratic pizza and cigarettes to follow.
I do think though that in this case the amendment is a good thing. I agree that we need a leader to be in place long enough to be functional but I do think the power of the incumbant is strong and that people can tend to grow comfortable with what they have.
I suspect your feelings may also come from excitement and hope brought on by Obama, but I think its good to remember that the laws that apply to the person you support also apply to the people you wouldn't. I dont' support the line-item veteo, even if I believe fully Obama would use it sparingly and fairly because it would also mean those I trust less would have access to it.
Regarding the argument of disallowing qualified individuals from the office. I did a quick google and it looks like America's population when Washington became president was 3,929,214. The population of educated individuals in the group was even less. The population has boomed and the proportion of educated individuals has expanded at an incredible rate. There are many many more people in the US who are qualified to serve the nation than there once was.
Moving from qualification to experience - the founding generation lacked it and they did pretty well. More importantly, a president can appoint people from administrations of the past. One of benefits of being a human being is not only our ability to learn from our mistakes, it is the ability to learn from others as long as we are humble and honest enough.
Sometimes to allow a country to be free you make some sacrifices that could have provided a temporary boost in one area or another in order to ensure that your long term health is good. There are a lot of people, because of this there are a lot of intelligent, honest, decent people who could lead us. We just need to do a better job of recognizing, supporting and encouraging those individuals.
Here's my question to those opposed to repeal: I'm not sure that there's contemporary proof for the idea that an incumbent president is automatically favored in the election, and that having no term limits would, therefore, lead to continued election of the same privileged person over and over. George H.W. Bush lost an election to Bill Clinton -- not (at that time) part of the political elite, based on his performance and the status of the economy. Jimmy Carter lost to an inexperienced challenger; Gerald Ford lost to an inexperienced challenger; Richard Nixon lost to an inexperienced challenger. Being an incumbent president does not automatically make you more likely to be re-elected, which makes me reject that as an argument for keeping term limits.
In addition, if the position for term limits is in part to keep an elite from forming -- a). too late, have you met the Senate? and b). if the concern surrounds the availability of political influence in terms of money, that seems like a legislative responsibility (campaign finance reform), not a constitutional issue. Plus -- isn't the idea of term limits in general an elitist proposition? A paternalistic step by the government to limit the actions of a populace that is better informed than ever? (Just throwing out some ideas). If we managed to make it 150 years without ever electing anyone more than twice, why would this be a danger now?
John, Tim, I understand your concerns about corruption, but I think those are problems that need to be treated legislatively, not through the executive.
To prevent another Dick Cheney from ruling from behind the curtain, I would also advocate abolishing the mostly superfluous office of Vice President. There is no constitutional function of the VP that cannot be safely assumed by either the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the Senate Majority Leader. As an additional safeguard against politically-motivated impeachments, I would grant the House Speaker or any other successor only the title of Acting President, which would expire in 90 days with a special election taking place no later than 60 days after the office of President becoming vacant.
While we're at it, how about a bill designating the Department of Justice an independent agency, like the Federal Reserve. Attorneys General would get a five-year term with a simple majority of Congress being sufficient to fire him/her. The idea here is to create an agency that Congress would also have access to in order to compel the executive branch to comply with subpoenas and such. We have just seen how useless a congressional subpoena is with the current system; decoupling the DOJ from the President's cabinet would fix that.
I can think of a lot more, but let me just say that if you don't go after the Bushies and fix the policies that allowed them to do the damage they did, they'll be back like the sand people in Star Wars - in greater numbers and highly pissed off.
If you want to look at recent examples, I think the relevant ones are Reagan, Clinton, and W. I think it's clear that W. could not have been reelected without massive fraud, but I think it's almost as clear that both Clinton and Reagan would have been reelected if they could have run again.
"I'm not sure that there's contemporary proof for the idea that an incumbent president is automatically favored in the election"
Its precisely BECAUSE of term limits that the incumbent president does not have a significant advantage over challengers. Term limits on our elected officials incentivises a political culture geared towards electoral upsets and change. If there were no limits, then an administration (and their supporters in washington) could put most of their resources into creating continuity, and would almost certainly attempt to weaken the institutions that allow for the debate which generates these "inexperienced challengers"
If you think that there is a big "washington elite" now, I would say it would entrench itself even further without term limits.
You also write: "if the concern surrounds the availability of political influence in terms of money..."
Its not in terms of money. Its in terms of voters expectations of how often they can expect political change, and by extension, how much their vote counts. Eliminating term limits opens the floodgates to water down the value of our votes.
You write, “…if the position for term limits is in part to keep an elite from forming -- a). too late, have you met the Senate?”
The U.S. senators can serve unlimited 6-year terms. So, if we are looking at the elites in the U.S. Senate, then this would seemingly support term limits, not oppose them.
The same is true in the U.S. House of Representatives where unlimited 2-year terms are permitted.
You're kidding, right? Dick Cheney tried to get the GOP nomination himself before it become clear that his paranoia and unbearable personality would forever disqualify him -- so as VP selection committee for Bush fils he picked himself, and then (as you surely must know) went on an ideological shooting spree which culminated in his claim that the vice president actually wields -more- power than the president.
In any case, that aside, presidents have term limits for the same reason that they don't have line item vetoes -- a reason which even the Federalists might have appreciated, namely that the presidency has only accreted power since the days of Washington, not lost it, and there needs to be some way to curb the executive.
Arbitrary limits on what can and can't be done in the White House might not be philosophically satisfying, but the other thing the Federalists surely understood was that political reality trumps political theory.
Until a better way to limit the power of a single chief executive comes along, keep term limits, keep line item vetoes, keep the War Powers Act (or actually, now that you mention it, strengthen it) -- we'll miss all that stuff when it's gone.
I say this because changing the 22nd Amendment without other systemic changes would likely guarantee us the Imperial Presidency sought by the current occupant and his Puppet Master. And please do not forget that support for the "Unitary Executive" would today, and for many years to come, be available in the form of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts.
Until we can get money out of politics, which again I would argue takes a change to the 14th amendment so that corporations can no longer exercise 1st amendment rights (they are NOT PEOPLE) a change to term limits of the president is dangerous.
But in reality it makes a lot of sense. First off, the the United States is the most powerful country in the world and the President holds broad executive authority. You really should reform the Constitution, or at least, apply it when it comes to Congress asserting its own role. Part of it is the political culture in how the constitution is seen, yes, but no one person should hold that much power. Like the old adage goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You don't have to be a historian to know that Bush himself decided to invade Iraq and so the United States invaded the country and started a war without provocation or imminent threat. He just felt like doing it, the world opposed it, and no one could stop him Constitutionally. That's messed up. The Congress had the power, which Bush just dared them to use, but they folded which takes me to my next point.
The US does at times demonstrate an authoritarian streak that is... how best to put this?...kinda creepy. Plenty evidence of this in the years after Sept 11. A wish for kings is a danger for a democracy and FDR continuously winning elections became a concern which drove passage of the 22nd amendment.
Would you have wanted a third Reagan term with exactly who really running the country since the man had Alzeimers? A perpetual Clinton administration? Or a Bush in power for so long he destroys the civil institutions of government that keep the democracy healthy?
Ah, yes, corporations…
Now, there’s a situation that NEEDS changing!
The 22nd should not be repealed but should be amended so that all federal elected officials should have term limits.
As current for President
Senate 3 terms of 6, total of 18 years even if not consecutive.
House 6 terms of 2, total of 12 years even if not consecutive.
If one starts at the local/state level at say 25, 8-10 years there, house 12 years, senate 18, they have served 30 years in political office.
Absolutely agree with Tim - remove ability of corporations to have personal rights. How can they have individual rights - they are not individuals, they can not pay the same penalties for crime as a person - we can't lock them up.
Over the years how many in congress have stayed too long, become too powerful, and too well supported by their local constituents to be removed?
The idea of the founding fathers was a government run buy representatives of the people not by a political or ruling class. To them that was what was one of the worst things wrong with monarchy. That's what we have today - generations of rulers, or at least rulers who last for generations. Caroline Kennedy may make a great Senator, or not, but she should not be appointed because of her heritage. Not saying she shouldn't be appointed or elected, just it should be for her qualifications, not her name. Of course we can say the same for the Bushes (just typing that name gives me the willies).
I think one of the reasons more citizens don't become more involved in government is the entry costs, both money and power of the incumbents. If we periodically remove the incumbents we get the chance to limit the ruling class, the 80+ year old senator who has "served" 50+ years and is out of touch with the majority of their constituents.
Government is about all of us and should not be as it is now - us and them.
If Clinton could have run against Bush we'd not have the horrors we have now.
And it is totally true that presidents do unpopular things in their second term because they are no longer accountable.
As for the argument that we set ourselves up for a dictator, that is strawman, our youngest president would be unable to sustain that. Of course it freaks ppl out when Bush says, to paraphrase, "it'd be great to be a dictator so long as I'm the dictator".
I'm inclined to agree, Saturn, that in practice a leader could conceivably stay in office, 'on and on' as Margaret Thatcher once quipped--and do a bloody good job because of it. (Not that she did either one of the two...) In parliamentary systems prime ministers occasionally stay in office far longer than their American political counterparts do; often, that is a good thing.
On the other hand, we have the practical experience of US Senators--and I have to say, due to their relative obscurity they can get away with being far less useful to the electorate precisely because of the high incumbency rates for the office.
There's also a theoretical problem. Suppose a leader becomes *too* successful/loved: what happens to opposition politics? What effect, possibly stultifying, would this have on the media's vigilance? Do we risk venerating our leaders by loving them too much, and if so: whither the outcome?
As it is I am of the opinion that the US presidency (the office, not the individual man) has become too powerful--too vested with an almost unimpeachable aura rarely seen in other parts of the developed world. I'd argue that 'institutional-creep' has gone too far for far too long in the US, and I find it disconcerting to hear people defending this historical development--even if only implicitly, by talking about 'our commander in chief' (pardon?) So much for the office of 'chief magistrate', as very early US presidents were called...
We can see that now with Mr. Obama. Is it healthy to treat him as a saviour--as the last great hope for our broken country? If he is (faux) seriously called 'The One', have we finally and unequivocally slipped into the sort of monarchy-light Americans are (mythically) reared to reject?
Neither prime ministers nor monarchs elsewhere (in the first world, that is) command such strangely messianic respect...
No single senator or congressional rep weilds the same power. Nothing illustrates this more than what we've been through the last 8 years with the ultimate political manipulators, the Bush admin.
Absent the public oversight the media is supposed to represent, the 22nd at least forces a change every 8 years, even though it's somewhat a matter of luck that things improve.
Until we have a media worthy of the title "journalists," keep the 22nd.
Steaming Pile, I think the elimination of the VP as you talk about it would lead to the possibility of a president who'd been selected by Congress, not by the people, because the Speaker is selected by a vote of the House, not on a direct election ticket. But I'm with you on the idea of making DOJ more independent.
Whisper, I'll quibble right back: Bush I was enormously popular after the first Gulf War. I think he had a 90% approval rating at that time. But maybe we're talking about a different kind of popularity?
Justin, can you elaborate a little more on what you mean by "term limits... incentiveises a political culture geared toward electoral upsets"? I don't completely follow. Aren't those same incentives in place when a president runs for a second term, or when a vice president runs?
Rick, you caught me. I do think of the Senate as an elite body. But I don't think of the House that way, because they're held to closer elections, which is also true of the president.
Amity, I know Cheney probably had his eye on the presidency, but not in an electoral way once he took office with Bush. That's the exception -- every other VP since the 20s has actively pursued the higher office while in office, and Cheney said he would not. And I disagree, in some parts, that the executive has only gained power since the Constitution was written -- institutionally, it's much the same, with the exception of limits like the relatively new 22nd amendment.
Tim4Change -- why does the check of the executive lay with the executive, though? I mean, why should it be to the successor to back down? Jackson was checked by Congress -- he was censured, though it didn't mean much (and was revoked), as was Nixon. FDR and Lincoln and Bush all claimed enormous authority on the basis of a president's power to defend the nation, which -- in Hamilton's view -- is basically all-encompassing. So if term limits are the only way that Congress has found to check the power of the president... I think it's down to them doing a poor job.
Columbo, I disagree with you that "no one could stop him Constitutionally." Five-hundred and thirty-five people could have stopped him, if they'd gotten their acts together, but they didn't, and we elected them. The march to war in Iraq isn't related to a president taking on enormous unauthorized powers -- that one's down to legislative stupidity. But the fear of kings -- is that really still our problem? And why did it become our problem 150 years after we broke from the king, instead of immediately? Reagan said he never wanted a third term; I don't think Clinton's personal popularity (dismal -- 20%s, I think) would have allowed his re-election; and a third Bush term... no, but I don't think he would have made it, either. Or, in order to make it, he would have had to make sure we didn't go where we are today: crumbling economy, two unpopular wars, internal spying, torture. You know?
Ruckus, I'm not sure I know what you mean by people in congress being "too well supported by their local constituents to be removed". I do see some value to bringing in new ideas/people who are better in touch, but I think that decision should be left to the voters.
RCMoya -- the UK comparison is a good one, and I like the question about oppo parties. Labour (particularly Blair's New Labour) seemed monolithic for a while, but that was following Thatcher's big conservative time. The opposition seems to flourish even when they have someone from the other party in the PM's spot for a long time. In fact, it seems to make them stronger (and smarter).
* Many consider that Bush was re-elected either by voting booth manipulation (I regard that as possible and yet hopefully unlikely); he may not have done it but he could have turned up the heat by nudging the attorney general to investigate things. I suspect he didn't in part because it served him.
* Many people regard that the terror status was manipulated(that seems very likely to me to have influenced things). People accused Clinton of Wag the Dog.
* Questions of misuse of government power to snoop come up from time to time.
* It's always a suspicion of mine that incumbent presidents have a too-smug ability to debate challengers based on security knowledge they have that the challengers does not yet have.
I think it's not possible to call the effect elitist if the mechanism is blind to who it is that it's limiting. You might make a weird case that it serves some elite may be the only ones to understand the complex arguments for why it's a good idea, but that would be like saying that the space program is an elitist program because only certain people know how to build spaceships. And I assume you're not saying that a lottery is elitist merely because it's arbitrary. Banks, and probably the army, will tell you that rotating employees is a good guard against entrenched conspiracies by shaking up the status quo in a way that makes it harder to hide schemes; certainly that is not elitist. I really don't buy the elitist argument at all. You'll have to make a better case.
"too well supported by their local constituents to be removed"
A lot of members of congress have high local support in polls because they get powerful and (best way I can think to say it) bring home the bacon. However look at the poll results for how people view congress as a whole - lower approval than Chimpy. The people who vote regularly continue to vote for the person who benefits them directly even if it is not in their or the countries overall best interest. Joe Biden votes for enhancing Delaware banking interests. Can't really blame him, they are his constituents.
Better/more jobs for Delaware, not so much for the rest of us. (Don't get me wrong, I like the guy. And he doesn't seem to me to have been near the most powerful senator. And if he hadn't been in the senate so long would he be VP elect?)
My post really is not about absolute power. All members of congress have power, just by their position. Staying in power for a long time limits the power to a few and creates a ruling class. This could be good for all, usually it is not. In fact I can't think of any political group in history which was good for the citizens the longer it stayed in power. Any one? Bueller?