Quote:
Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com
One term limits would make elected politicians immediate lame-ducks. Why would they worry about reelection consequences for their unpopular actions?
Further, I don't think our current president is the greatest example to illustrate your point. Has Obama seemed overly concerned about doing unpopular things during his stay in the White House? Do you think he would be less inclined to act in such a fashion if he knew he'd only have the job until 2012?
|
The idea that elected officials need the prospect of a second term to keep them in good behavior is a popular canard. Actually, it is the quest for the second term that has got a lot of our presidents in trouble. Nixon and Watergate, Kennedy in Houston.
Everyone agrees that limiting the presidency to two terms is a good idea. Limiting it to a single term is even better.
The longer an elected official stays in power, the less good behavior they need because the longer they stay, the more they entrench themselves in the office. Their behavior becomes less and less visible and it becomes easier and easier for them to re-elect themselves.
We really have a rich supply of real citizens that are just as capable and just as interested in making some short contribution to the office. Four years or so is plenty of time for somebody to make a contribution if they want to do more than get elected another term. And a steady stream of new faces in the office and looking at the office lowers the learning curve for the US public in trying to figure out what the heck is going on.
How can people worry about the power of politicians and then argue that they need an endless future of more opportunities to squat in the office screwing the public?
Federal term limits and the
criminalization of asking party affiliation for purposes of voter registration. These are two things that would revolutionize politics in the US. For the better.