rare political posting

[ceagle]

Okay, so in some cases we have term limits, and in others we don't.

Here's the thing... in your estimation, which is better...?
- Term Limits (which means we always have a Lame Duck who can do pretty much anything in their last term, sometimes a full half of their time in office), or
- No Term Limits (which allows some people to become career politicians, as long as they can keep getting elected)

Some say the best argument for no limits was our president Roosevelt, who held the country together through very difficult times... and others say he is also the best argument against unlimited terms (and is the main reason we have term limits today), because his popularity almost established an executive dynasty.

It's a pretty tough question, since both elements have good and bad... but which is better, less likely to be abused, and more likely to motivate a leader toward good?


[Poll #1222208]

Thanks! ^v^

Comments

[chris-sawyer.livejournal.com]

We need a parlimentary government where any politician can be booted out at any time. :>

[orv.livejournal.com]

Having lived in a state that had term limits, I can tell you that one unforeseen consequence was that lobbyists and legislative staff became much more powerful. Because legislators were term-limited, it was the staff members and lobbyists who had all the experience and continuity in office.

[griffinwolf.livejournal.com]

I liked what West wing said, "We have Term Limits, they're called ELECTIONS!"

That being said, presidency is probably a good idea to have limited.

[frostscar.livejournal.com]

There are no limits on term in Ontario/Canada. I have always felt that if a person is doing a good job they should stay.

[loveyouenola.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's not right to limit terms - that flies in the face of true democracy. The people should decide by vote when someone's time is up.

Plus the real issue of the 'lame duck' situation... it's just plan flawed.

[austin-dern.livejournal.com]

Given that ``strongman'' or ``dictator-for-life'' is not a rare failure mode for governments, having social and constitutional limits against strong executives seems to be a reasonable precaution. It may not prevent a catastrophic breakdown, but the obstacles can't hurt. (Yeah, I know, we're amazingly lucky to have had Franklin Roosevelt as President for 1941-45. But is it really credible that there was nobody else who could possibly have won the 1940 election and then effectively lead the country? Really? Consider his many flaws as a manager of organizations before answering.)

That's only necessary for strong executives, of course. Executives who have only or principally symbolic roles -- eg, the Queen of England -- there's not much need to limit; similarly legislators tend to be in bodies sufficiently broad that this sort of power can't be concentrated for too very long.

[expandranon.livejournal.com]

The US started out with a lot of limits against the Imperial Presidency, but they started to go by the wayside at the beginning of the so-called Progressive Era, and were gone for good and ever at the end of FDR's last term.

The Presidents of today's America are nearly mirror opposites of what the Founders pictured when they created the office. A position that started out as one of humble public service has become the seat from which every aspect of American life is in some way controlled or manipulated.

Term limits? Call me cynical, but I can't see how it matters how often you reassign the Captaincy of a sinking ship.

[telbert.livejournal.com]

I think that term limits are important, for they prevent the formation of an executive dynasty. We're already seeing some terrible abuses of power in our government these days (warrantless wiretapping, sending *suspected* terrorists to secret torture camps without even being formally charged or tried in court). Abolishing term limits only threatens to steepen the slippery slope on which we already sit.

The "lame duck" risk that comes of Presidential term limits can mitigated by having a Congress and a citizenry that continues to take action to keep the President on task and in line. This is why I believe that citizens need to keep their constitutionally protected voice and USE it before it is taken away from us.