Introduction
Every political commentator and even casual onlookers appear to support this proposition. Everyone seemed to believe that the government is dysfunctional and that something must be done to remedy the issue.
Partisanship and Legislative Challenges
There appears to be so much hatred and partisanship in Washington that legislators are unable to pass budgets. Even when both political parties agree that a problem exists, they cannot agree on suitable legislation. Of course, both political parties are to blame. Democrats complain that Republicans are obstructionists obsessed with radical ideologies. On the other hand, Republicans claim Democrats are culpable for allowing the seizure of the government and are promoting class warfare in the country by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Hence, this triggers the need for the need for reforms in the current structure and rule of our government.
The Filibuster and Presidential Term Limit
The filibuster is one example of how the minority can bring the Senate to a standstill regarding individual initiatives by the majority. Majority of experts believe this parliamentary tack is used to the disadvantage of the country. It could follow the fact that the configuration of the presidency has lived longer than its usefulness. Some think this political funk is the fault of the opposition and some also say it’s the presidency that has brought the underproductive changes to our society. Some even believe the current structure of presidency is too political and does not focus on consensus building and caring for all-Americans as it should be.
The Modern Day Structure of Presidency
Political pundits also suggest the modern day structure of presidency which is more concerned about the general population interest than their political parties or selected special interests group in the country. The current constitution allows the president to run for two consecutive terms of each four years as opposed to before 1951 when the presidents could run for office as many times as they wanted and out of tradition did until Franklin Delano Roosevelt(Garry 1809). Entirely a few years after FDR passed away in his four terms, the 22nd Amendment to the constitution was passed which allowed the president to serve only two four years each period (Garry 1809). This amendment came out of necessity and because the previous presidential term limit had outlived. So it is not wrong in any way to propose changes to the current presidential term limit. The amount of time dedicated by the sitting president is not suitable for our nation. And being in a constant mode of considering the political implications of every presidential decision, which ranges from the security of our country to managing it is financing, reduces the effectiveness of the president. Thus, this calls for the limitation of the presidential term to six years period (Dahlström, Carl, and Holmgren 145). Consequently, this requires that the presidential campaign one term and be free of political pressure during his or her entire tenure.
Advantages and Disadvantages of a Six-Year Term Limit
Apparently, there are advantages and disadvantages of this proposal. The benefits are: the president can focus on doing his jobless affected by how his decisions will impact his reelection and the image of his political party. Since the president will campaign once schmoozing with significant contributors to his campaign will not be necessary once he resumes office. The latter also gives the president generous time to focus on serving the general population without having an interest group. Also, there will be less money spent on political campaigns because there will be less presidential elections hence the campaign money can be directed to government projects in the interest of the general population.
Concerns and Counterarguments
A more rapid and keenly structured changeover in the presidency will lead to more ideas and hopefully more creativity to avoid the mistakes that led to the amendment. The effects of PACs and lobbyists will be somewhat tempered because of fewer elections. The president can focus his or her agenda without the constant burden of selling their public image and competence as means of maintaining political viability (Santos 1549). The president will also be able to make decisions based on the issues themselves as opposed to their political value. The political opposition also has fewer effects when they oppose the presidents’ solution to a problem primarily as means to build its political image. The energy and time that would be used to the campaign are allotted to issues that matter. Whereas this proposal has pros, it also has glaring cons like since the president is aware that he or she is only serving for one six years term, the president should not worry on struggling to please the electorates (Santos 1549). In case of a bad president, the country will be straddled for two extra years, also if the president is elected at an advanced age the risk of dying in office greater. And again the people will be voting fewer times since there will be fewer elections. The electorates always participate more in a poll of a president.
Public Opinion and Conclusion
Young people will be voting less since a person turning 18 years just after presidential elections will not for a president until he or she is 24 (Plattner 6).Given the advantages and disadvantages, of six years presidential term limit the question is, are Americans ready for this? Are we willing to pay the price for term limits by sacrificing the benefits of experienced leaders? And were we to see ourselves faced again with the kind of choice Americans were given in 1940? I would prefer to vote for experienced FDR than inexperienced Wendell Willkie (Plattner 7). The question then is whether we would gain more, of political freedom than we would lose regarding experienced leaders. I would choose term limits and political freedom though there is a reason for term limits with functional leaders in the presidency and that’s this for a periodic shake-up. On term is term is likely to destroy the great motive to good behavior as the worthiness of conduct is only rewarded in reelection and since one knows that he is just serving one term. Therefore, this may not be mandatory for leaders with no morals since he is or she is a president immune from political consideration (Dickinson 345). President needs to listen to the people, respond to majority sentiments or pay attention to views that may be diverse, intense and perhaps at variance with his own and here concerns for once political future can be a powerful stimulus to responsible and responsive performance in office. Thus, this is hence going to be the advantage of the general population which elects the leaders as their employers to serve with diligence. For instance, in 1984, Ronald Reagan, dropped his earlier to about evil empire, announced a concealed passion for arms control, slowed down the movement toward intervention in Central America, affirmed his loyalty to Social Security and the safety net and in other ways moderated his hard ideological positions. A single full term would have given Reaganite ideology full of uninhibited sway (Dickinson 345). A six-year term would release presidents of the obligation of submitting their performance record to the voters. It would enshrine the president knows the best myth, which has already got us into enough trouble as a nation. It would be a hindrance to mandatory presidential accountability. It would also reinforce imperial presidency. It would strangle the democratic process itself.The abolishing of reelection has adverse consequences in as much as to say that we should give it a try.
Conclusion
From a different perspective, there is some evidence that presidents tend to save the controversial decisions or policies until a second term to avoid public backlash which does not serve as a counterargument to limiting the presidential period to one of six years. Under the current system, the most one can say is that the president behaves for four years and then all bets are off for the next four years assuming they are reelected. They also spend most of their first term in office running for the next cycle. Additionally, the opposition tends to hyper-focus on preventing the reelection of the incumbent which arguably bog down the legislative process. Although a single- term would not necessarily solve this, another alternative might be to limit presidents to non-consecutive terms like Chile (Islam 143). In so doing you would preserve the incentive of reelection down the road while still potentially tapping into a president acting more swiftly on their agenda and avoid a president delaying unpopular decision making up to a second term (Boston 93). While people try to figure out whether six years presidential term limit is viable or not, they are supposed to compare with other countries where we have such scenarios.
Comparison with Other Countries
Take a look at Mexico; their president serves for one six-year term with no reelection. That raises two issues: a weak and ineffective or corrupt president is guaranteed six years. What happens after six years? The economy is on its knees, corruption is the order of the day, and the president cannot talk or act. For this reason, this makes majority agree that a system that rewards the presidents who attain success in their first term with a second term is better (Boston 103). A strong president limited to six years and must, therefore, do his significant initiatives in that time? It is hard to imagine Reagan with one term or Bill Clinton. Arguably, the six single terms would produce a kind of quasi-parliamentary style electioneering where you would be voting for a candidate but more importantly, a party apparatus that is effectively more powerful than the president an accurate picture of what is happening in Mexico (Boston 123). It is also possible that in the event of death or resignation of the president we could have someone who was never elected to the presidency serving as chief executive for a more extended than the elected president serves now. If we are going to change in other views, we should consider a parliamentary system or even better change that gives people change to change horse if they want to. If four years is not perfect, six years might be worse.
Conclusion and Consideration
All said, the departure from conventions are matters of necessity and need for a change, but again the difference must come when it is inevitable. For instance, there is this to be said about conventions: it permits kinds of useful departures from a rule that strict laws would make impossible. The crisis of World War two was precisely the kind of exception that justified a departure from the term limits Convention. President Roosevelt ran for and was elected to a third term in 1940 and then a fourth in 1944(Islam 147). Likewise in 1940 with the battle of Britain in full swing, Britain amended the Parliament act which required a general election after every five years and extended Winston Churchill’s for another five-year term (Islam 152). All these were happening at exceptional times, and departures from conventions are meant for such opportunities. Differences are that when the war was over the British returned to their conference. In America, there is fear that the two-presidential-term convention could not be restored, combined with Republican and conservative worry of executive tyranny sparked by the strong Roosevelt presidency which led to the enactment of the 22nd Amendments.Presidential term limits are now a constitutional requirement (Islam 153).
Conclusion and Final Thoughts
But would it be better to rely on Conventions as the British do to give ourselves the ease needed in an emergency? Or without the Constitutional, would president today often seek the third term and perhaps more, putting an end to the two-term convention question. It is good also to note that much of the debate over presidential term limits speculative with little real evidence. The Convention of the two-term presidency that earlier dated the Amendment makes it hard to assess the measures. Enacting the 22nd amendment may have not well been figured out, but repealing it now would be worse (Garry 1815). The two main complaints against the amendment are that it leads to failed lame-duck second terms and creates instability in the personnel and policy. The numbers of the failed presidential second term since the Amendment was adopted identify it as a culprit.
Conclusion and Final Thoughts
The latter makes the Amendment differ from the convention because it removes any question of 3rd term whereas it is always likely that a president might depart from the conference as FDR ultimately did that predictability gives confidence to Congress and others when dealing with lame-duck president (Plattner 12). As scholar David Crocket argues, many factors have contributed to failed second terms including errors committed by the president or his staff during the first term and political factors also separate from Term limits often give the presidents not enough time within which to enact change. Besides, concerns about their standing in history and preserving their parties hold on the office of the presidency are strong presidential motivators in a second term. We cannot escape the perspective that freedom from the need to seek reelection is a good thing as it allows the presidents to put their experience and leadership to work by tackling tough policy issues from reelection consideration although such efforts may prove overambitious and lead to second term failures. Hamilton’s fears of negative impact also prove to be under scrutiny.
Conclusion and Final Thoughts
For sure the executive branch vacancies upon presidential transitions are a substantial problem for effective governance. But that high level of turnover seems hard to the Amendment, given that the average 2-3 year duration for agency leadership post falls well within one presidential term(Dickinson 345). Note that is changes in the party control rather than changes in the presidency as always thought of that proves the most disorganizing (Garry 1818). The importance of the also means that some arguments for term limits fail. Particularly in our current time of deep political polarization and partisan ideological cohesion, it is not clear that putting a different person in the presidency will make much difference to policy or appointments into office and judgeship if the party is in in power of the presidency remain the same. Opinion about conserving an adequate array of aspirants as well seem awash. Term limits ensure that the power of incumbency will not deter new candidates, but also operate to exclude the candidate who may be the most popular and who has the strongest from even contending. The question comes down to whether term limits benefits in preventing presidential tyranny justify the loss of presidential expertise and democratic choice that follows from preventing successful presidents from running for a third term(Dickinson 345). Here history and the longstanding two-term limits are essential to prevent presidential entrenchment. We can safely conclude that those who drafted this Amendment sought somehow to prevent the emergence of a president with tenure as long as Roosevelts. Many proponents of the measure further would argue that they tried to codify the two-term tradition of presidency associated with Washington as we are all aware.
Conclusion and Final Thoughts
But although this the observations surely points at to the general aspirations of the author of the amendment, they do not establish a specific picture of how the framers intended their proposal to apply. To begin with, the record has it that Congress deliberations about the amendments were curtailed. The house restricted the debate to two hours. Furthermore, the discussion leading up to the proposing of the 22nd amendment did not naturally suggest a consistent, clear legislative purpose. When Congress dropped early proposals to foreclose a person’s eligibility for office if he had served in two prior terms and instead the current text that focuses on limiting the individuals twice elected to the presidency, it provided little explanation for this remarkable shift beyond needing compromise as part of the lawmaking process. We should also note that the framers of this amendment did not apparently intend to create a two-year lame-duck tradition in any narrow sense. We are therefore left with uncertainty about the precise goals of the 22nd amendment creators. The ratification debates over the amendment do not provide much additional insight into the particular wishes of those who supported the proposal. In general, the amendment does not appear to have prompted a great deal of public or legislative discussion once proposed by Congress. The proponents of a six-year term would argue that maybe it should be a test for something for the Americans, but it is essential to consider the disadvantage of the advantages. One would say it is an idea whose time has come and that it would encourage presidents to take the risk, make difficult decisions and exert bold leadership while reducing the fear of political retribution but how true is this? Going by its disadvantages I would support a two-year term presidency.
Works Cited
Boston, Jonathan. “Protecting long-term interests in a short-term world: An agenda for better governmental stewardship.” NZJPIL 15 (2017): 93.
Dahlström, Carl, and Mikael Holmgren. “The Link between Appointments and Appropriations in the Politics of Administrative Design.” (2017).
Dickinson, Gregory. “One Justice, Two Justice, Red Justice, Blue Justice: Dissecting the Role of Political Ideology in Supreme Court Nominations.” U. Ill. L. Rev. (2017): 345.
Islam, S. Nazrul. “Reduction of the Government Term for Stable Democracy.” Governance for Development. Palgrave Macmillan US, 2016. 141-160.
Plattner, Marc F. “Liberal Democracy’s Fading Allure.” Journal of Democracy 28.4 (2017): 5- 14.
Santos, Michael. “Incentivizing Excellence: A Suggestion for Merit-Based Reductions from a Twenty-Six- Year Federal Prison Insider.” Hastings LJ 66 (2014): 1549.
Wills, Garry. James Madison: The American Presidents Series: The 4th President, 1809-1817. Times Books, 2015.
