On Term Limitations
So here’s a thought, why do we think term limitations are a good idea? I know this is a weird question, term limitations are hardly argued by anybody. The usual argument I get when discussing this with my friends and enemies is: “Well, you know, it’s good to let someone else have a chance.” Not that I really want to lambaste my friends (or my enemies), but it seems like we’re treating the presidency like a toy to be shared among fifth graders. I suggest that term limitations have two negative consequences for America:
First, when there is a good president in office, it removes that president from office. Second, when there is a bad president in office, it dulls motivations to remove that president from office, since his term will be up soon anyway.
America’s system of government, with it’s checks and balances, generally keeps the president from wielding too much power, so I argue that a good president should be able to stay in office, as long as he/she is willing to continue to do the job. The president should understand that he may be there for a while, and therefore can implement long-term policy. After all, just what do we think we’re accomplishing in short 4 or 8 year bursts? Term limitations are at least partly responsible for the roller-coaster of political whims that we go on, and the flip flopping of the parties as they attempt to gain control every four years.
An how much time do elected officials really spend in their re-election campaigns anyway? I’d really like to know. All of the candidates for the presidency are mostly senators or governors for some body of constituents somewhere, and what exactly is happening to their work there? Instead of having defined election cycles, an elected official should know that they may be removed from office any time, not merely at the end of their designated cycle. That way, they are motivated to do their job well all the time, after all, isn’t that how the rest of us live?