Finally, proponents of term limits point out that the aforementioned second-term problems were due to personality, leadership, and policy problems, not clout in Congress alone. In terms of change, the presence of term limits can 'cut' both ways: "On the one hand it is said that not having term limits makes needed change more difficult because of the power that long-time office holders amass. On the other hand, term limits can also be seen as an obstacle to long-term needed political change because it forces a change of leadership at a time when the leader's project might not be ready for such change" (Wilpert 2009).

However, the system of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution suggests that the Founding Fathers envisioned a limited form of government, without a powerful ruling political class, particularly at the executive level. Above all, Washington and his fellow Founding Fathers feared the establishment of a king, or central figure with great authority and power. Without term limits, the extraordinary wealth and public support required to run for office makes participation in the system more difficult than before. We have come a long way from the ideal of the gentleman farmer, giving back to his country with a few years of service in the legislature, and then retuning home. The dangers of even good men and women serving too long can be seen in Congress, where powerful members use their seniority to strong-arm committees into giving them pet projects to deliver to their state, or men and women who simply are too old to truly fulfill the needs of the office to the capacity necessary to govern. Absolute power, it is said, corrupts absolutely, and when an incumbent becomes entrenched, he or she enjoys something close to absolute power.

The age of the Internet has enabled new candidates to improve their name recognition, to raise funds more quickly, and to have greater flexibility in disseminating their message directly to the people. This was evidenced in Barak Obama's presidential campaign in 2008. But we must...

Popular Michael Bloomberg will likely be elected to a third term as mayor in New York City, and while he has a strong record as a leader, his wealth and preexisting name recognition was obviously a great asset in his electability, assets he now enjoys even more as 'Mayor Mike' has become a ubiquitous presence in the city. An end to term limits makes it easier for more candidates with a similar wealthy and prominent profile to hold onto their political positions, and while there is the argument that we live in 'extraordinary times,' on the other hand, remember that the times we live in always seem dire and extraordinary when we are suffering through them -- we must not regret limiting our personal liberty to serve in office out of fear.
Ironically, it is fear of the unknown that keeps many lackluster candidates in office. 'Better the devil you know than the devil you do not,' the cliche states. Yet ironically, it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who said that the only thing the nation has to fear is 'fear itself.' While it is true that term limits would have prohibited Roosevelt from serving a third and fourth term, consider the dangers if lesser individuals were to spend the majority of their second term consolidating their power and using the public relations machinery of the office to run -- again and again. The advocates of an abolishment of presidential term limits fall prey to the faulty 'great man' thinking -- that some men are so great that their greatness exceeds the need for institutions to be responsive to the people.

Works Cited

22: Presidential term limits. (2002, November 27). Post Gazette. Retrieved April 16, 2009 at http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20021127amendment_22p9.asp

Wilpert, Gregory. (2009, February 19). An important victory for Venezuela and for socialism.

NACLA. Retrieved April 16, 2009 at http://nacla.org/node/5526