Presidential Term Limits: Allowing Greater

Presidential Term Limits: Allowing Greater Freedom of Choice by Limiting Choice

While most historians widely believe that George Washington could have been elected to a third term, he stated that eight years was enough, and did not want to infuse more power into the institution of the presidency than was necessary to rule the nation. In establishing the terms of the office in the fragile, new democracy, Washington was determined not to seem like a king, even though many Americans wished him to become king. Most presidents followed Washington's example as a matter of custom (or necessity, given their lack of popularity, health, or premature death). Then, in 1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had been president for most of the Great Depression, argued that a regime change would be too jarring for the nation during a time of war. He ran and won an unprecedented third term in office.

FDR made a similar argument when he was re-elected to a fourth term. Although Roosevelt died shortly after he was reelected, leaving the presidency to Harry Truman, the opposition party (and a few Democrats) were sufficiently worried about the idea of instating a permanent president, should another figure become equally, wildly, popular, that they successfully lobbied for the passage of the twenty-second amendment to the constitution (22: Presidential term limits, 2002, November 27, Post Gazette). This is why one argument sometimes advanced against presidential term limits is that they were originally imposed for purely political reasons, rather than to resolve a question of constitutional controversy about the separation of powers. Opponents of term limits argue that the greater power of the executive branch makes unlimited time in service dangerous, proponents counter that the executive branch is the only office of governance elected (in a de facto, if not procedural fashion) by all of the people of America.

However, despite Roosevelt's status as a liberal Democrat, support for term limits has experienced an ideological reversal since 1945, since Republicans assumed control of the presidency for longer periods of time after FDR. President Reagan decried term limits, and the Republican ideology of granting sweeping executive privileges has caused more Republicans to support the abolishment of term limits and greater powers for the president in general. Allowing unlimited terms in office tends to support the party in power, given that the incumbent usually has more resources and better name recognition. "It is well-known, for example, that historically 97% of incumbents win their reelection bids in the United States and a vast majority of those running are incumbents" (Wilpert 2009).

People often fear 'rocking the boat' of authority, especially during a time of war, except when the nation is in dire financial straits, as was the case in 1980 as well as 2008. Also, simply 'being' the president makes an individual look 'presidential' and thus facilitates electability. Term limits demand the infusion of new blood and new ideas into politics and counteract this psychological tendency in the electorate. While some argue that term limits inhibit the electorate's power of choice, by encouraging new individuals to seek office, rather than encouraging a class of career politicians, term limits can be helpful to increasing political participation in government.

Term limits may also make for better government in general. The stresses and strains of the presidency are so great, even a second term can deplete the man (or woman) who serves in the position, spiritually, morally, and even physically. Historically, second terms have been very problematic for presidents, as evidenced in George Bush's current term, Bill Clinton's scandal, the Iran-Contra Affair during Reagan's final days, and of course, Richard Nixon's ignominious resignation from office after the Watergate scandal. Proponents of ending term limits argue that these problems have their origins in the 'lame duck' phenomena, whereby presidents have less clout in Congress because they are 'lame ducks' and will soon be replaced (Wilpert 2009). They state that more often than not, a president's last two years in office results in little being accomplished. Proponents of term limits point out that second term presidents are denied the distraction of campaigning for office, some relief in a culture afflicted by what has been called a 'permanent campaign,' and can take more risky stances than a president still concerned about electability.

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.