On Term Limits and Second Term Flexibility

[Norjagen]

So, I got to thinking, the other day. In the midst of a heated debate within my family regarding the current race for the American presidency, the topic shifted to what Obama might do with a second term, and how "he'd be even more flexible after the election," as my father put it. That got me pondering term limits, and whether or not they harm the political process. I came to the conclusion that they do, in a number of ways.

As a president moves through their first term, they must do so with their reelection in mind. While their motives for being in power may be suspect, there's no arguing with the fact that the people have them on a sort of leash. The president must act in a way that serves the people, or at least pleases them, lest he or she find themselves at a disadvantage in the coming election.


After they've won reelection however, things start to invariably get ugly. With no prospect for a third term on the horizon, presidents are free to behave recklessly, in a manner that suits themselves the best. The people have lost that level of electoral control; they have nothing but impeachment with which to threaten the president, and let's face it; impeachment has only been used in severe breaches of authority.

If there were no term limits, the executive would always have the prospect of one more term to work towards, and would need to bear the will of the people in mind through their second term, maybe even their third, and behave accordingly. If the people wanted 4 more years, or 4 more after that, and are so confident in their leader that they're willing to reelect them, then what's the harm?

I'd like to get some more viewpoints on the matter. While it makes sense to me, I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. Discuss.

[Farnhamia]

So, I got to thinking, the other day. In the midst of a heated debate within my family regarding the current race for the American presidency, the topic shifted to what Obama might do with a second term, and how "he'd be even more flexible after the election," as my father put it. That got me pondering term limits, and whether or not they harm the political process. I came to the conclusion that they do, in a number of ways.

As a president moves through their first term, they must do so with their reelection in mind. While their motives for being in power may be suspect, there's no arguing with the fact that the people have them on a sort of leash. The president must act in a way that serves the people, or at least pleases them, lest he or she find themselves at a disadvantage in the coming election.


After they've won reelection however, things start to invariably get ugly. With no prospect for a third term on the horizon, presidents are free to behave recklessly, in a manner that suits themselves the best. The people have lost that level of electoral control; they have nothing but impeachment with which to threaten the president, and let's face it; impeachment has only been used in severe breaches of authority.

If there were no term limits, the executive would always have the prospect of one more term to work towards, and would need to bear the will of the people in mind through their second term, maybe even their third, and behave accordingly. If the people wanted 4 more years, or 4 more after that, and are so confident in their leader that they're willing to reelect them, then what's the harm?

I'd like to get some more viewpoints on the matter. While it makes sense to me, I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. Discuss.

I myself think term limits are the lazy person's solution to politics. US Presidents did not seek a third term because Washington had set the tradition by not doing so. President Grant did seek a third term - a third nomination, at least - in 1880 but didn't get it. Coolidge refused to consider a third term. Only Franklin Roosevelt was president more than eight years. So I have to ask, which presidents elected since the presidency was term-limited have behaved recklessly in their term-limited second terms? Eisenhower? Johnson? Nixon? Reagan? Clinton? George W. Bush?

[Silent Majority]

I'm not entirely sure what term limits are supposed to accomplish. They seem to just emerge from peoples' distrust of politicians.

[Tanovart]

Term limits are ridiculous. After FDR died, that's when the term limit was proposed by Republican fuckwads who didn't want a Democrat to do anything good for 16 years like he did.

[Greater New York]

Term limits are ridiculous. After FDR died, that's when the term limit was proposed by Republican fuckwads who didn't want a Democrat to do anything good for 16 years like he did.

Then how did it pass in a generally Democratic controlled Congress?

I'm sure you'd be calling for term limits if you went through 16 years of Republican control in the White House (Especially if it was just one person).

[Silent Majority]

Term limits are ridiculous. After FDR died, that's when the term limit was proposed by Republican fuckwads who didn't want a Democrat to do anything good for 16 years like he did.

Then how did it pass in a generally Democratic controlled Congress?

Conservative Democrats most likely.

[Genivaria]

We don't need Term Limits, the only limits we need is approval ratings.

[JuNii]

while you have term limits of any amount, you will have the same problem. the check and balance? the fact that the political group goes on. The Republicans learned that after Bush Jr's second term. so if the candidate does not care about their political party, then they have nothing holding them back from doing a piss poor job on their last term.

[Norjagen]

while you have term limits of any amount, you will have the same problem. the check and balance? the fact that the political group goes on. The Republicans learned that after Bush Jr's second term. so if the candidate does not care about their political party, then they have nothing holding them back from doing a piss poor job on their last term.

This is actually something I never thought about, and I thank you for bringing it to the table. Pressure from the party may potentially keep presidents in line through their second terms. However, as you said, if the president doesn't care about the political party, (and let's face it, after leaving the presidency, it's time to start cashing in by writing memoirs and giving interviews, and step out of the political realm anyway,) there's nothing to stop them.

[AlaricII]

Then how did it pass in a generally Democratic controlled Congress?

I'm sure you'd be calling for term limits if you went through 16 years of Republican control in the White House (Especially if it was just one person).

The 1946 midterm elections resulted in the Republican Party taking control of the House and the Senate for the 80th congress. Because the Republican Party was anathema to the South, most of their gains were at the expense of northern liberal democrats. Southern Democrats and Republicans worked together on a number of issues during the before and during the 80th congress, most notably the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act over Truman's veto dismantling some agencies created during the New Deal. This cooperation also resulted in the passage of the 22nd amendment.

[Caninope]

Then how did it pass in a generally Democratic controlled Congress?

I'm sure you'd be calling for term limits if you went through 16 years of Republican control in the White House (Especially if it was just one person).

The 1946 midterm elections resulted in the Republican Party taking control of the House and the Senate for the 80th congress. Because the Republican Party was anathema to the South, most of their gains were at the expense of northern liberal democrats. Southern Democrats and Republicans worked together on a number of issues during the before and during the 80th congress, most notably the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act over Truman's veto dismantling some agencies created during the New Deal. This cooperation also resulted in the passage of the 22nd amendment.

An amendment that had to be ratified by three fourths of the states, may I remind you.

[Caninope]

while you have term limits of any amount, you will have the same problem. the check and balance? the fact that the political group goes on. The Republicans learned that after Bush Jr's second term. so if the candidate does not care about their political party, then they have nothing holding them back from doing a piss poor job on their last term.

This is actually something I never thought about, and I thank you for bringing it to the table. Pressure from the party may potentially keep presidents in line through their second terms. However, as you said, if the president doesn't care about the political party, (and let's face it, after leaving the presidency, it's time to start cashing in by writing memoirs and giving interviews, and step out of the political realm anyway,) there's nothing to stop them.

Well, since we're talking about Bush, let's be honest.

Bush wasn't bad his second term. The first term was the one where he went invading everywhere- he calmed down in his second term, especially after the Democrats took Congress. He even acted responsibly (or about as responsibly as possible, given the circumstances) in the 2008 Financial Crisis. I think anyone's gripes with him should be in the first term.

Also, you've forgotten the elephant in the room: the President can't do a whole lot without Congress.