Term Limits Apppropriate for White House

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright November 30, 2013
All Rights Reserved.                                      

            Ratified in 1951, the 22nd Amendment stated once-and-for-all that the president of the United States should be limited to two-four-year-terms.  While the Senate and House enjoy career-long jobs without term limits unless voters toss them out of office, the president gets a maximum of eight years to either to do good or damage to the country.  New York University history Prof. Jonathan Zimmerman suggests a change to the 22nd Amendment allowing presidents to run for the third or fourth term with voter approval.  Citing the 22nd Amendment, Zimmerman argues that more could get done if presidents weren’t subjected to lame duck status in the final term.  Driven by Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt four-terms in office, Republicans had just about enough, pushing for the 22nd Amendment.  Given Washington’s political gridlock, Zimmerman thinks a change is in order.

             At no time in history has the presidency become so partisan.  When Democrats in 2008-09 acted with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress to impose national health care on nation, the polarization worsened Washington’s notorious paralysis.  When President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law March 21, 2010, not a single Republican supported the legislation.  Today’s bitter partisan divide prevents any lopsided partisan from controlling the executive branch for more than eight years.  Zimmerman thinks that term limits shortchange “democracy itself,” preventing an elected leader from implementing the kind of reforms needed to advance the country’s business.  Proponents of extending term limits, like Zimmerman, believe ending term limits would give the president more time to complete his political agenda.

             After nearly five years in office, Obama hasn’t mastered to the role of statesman, working with both sides of the aisle.  Only when the nation faced default Oct. 1, did the president bring GOP leaders to the White House, hoping to get some kind of bipartisan agreement.    “Many of Obama’s fellow Democrats have distanced themselves from the reform and from the president.  Even former President Bill Clinton has said that Americans should be allowed to keep the health insurance they have  . . “ said Zimmerman, citing no less that George Washington’s view opposing absolute term limits.  “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally more capable of serving the public,” said Washington, referring to himself, whose Revolutionary War years needed more time to serve his country.

             Suggesting that if Obama were given another term, he’d get more support from Congressional Democrats, Zimmerman makes a feeble case for ending term limits.  When you consider the damage done to U.S. foreign policy and the economy under the last GOP president, term limits assured some protection against incompetence.  When you consider that most members of Congress serve far more than eight years, there’s no guarantee that they can get anything done.  While it’s true that some are more gifted at governing than others, extending presidential terms would create a new type of monarchy.  When you look at the 2011 revolution in Egypt, it was precisely because of Hosni Mubark’s 30-year rule inviting pillaging-and-plundering that finally drove Mubarack from office.  Leaving office in a third-world country with the wealth of Microsoft’s chairman Bill Gates is shameful.

             Whatever Washington’s partisan divide, presidents must look to form the broadest possible coalition from which to govern.  Obama’s colossal rookie mistake involved allowing former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.) to impose a liberal national health care agenda on the country.  Whether or not Obama had only one term as president, forcing the GOP into accepting his version of national health care started his presidency on the wrong foot.  Neither Pelosi nor Reid cared whether or not Obama stayed for more than one term.  Locking up his second term has more to do with the GOP going too far out on a right wing limb than anything Obama did during his first four years.  Extending term limits would not create more bipartisanship or increase chances that the president’s own party would support his political agenda.

             Attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment would be a bad thing for the country looking to end the Washington’s partisan divide in the future.  Today’s hyper-partisanship stems from one party trying to impose its agenda on the other.  No pne twisted Obama’s arm in his first term to impose national health care agenda on a reluctant Republican Party.  While it’s true the GOP offered no constructive alternatives, it’s also true the Democrats did very little to cross the partisan divide.  Had Obama held a series of meetings with Republican members of Congress, he would have had a better chance of fixing the nation’s broken health care system.  Obama could have worked on bipartisan legislation in Congress to prevent insurance companies from excluding folks with pre-existing conditions.  Creating today’s bitter partisan atmosphere had nothing to do with the 22nd Amendment.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.