Like this:

Since our constitution and this law of a two-term limit were established so long ago, it seems possible then, that the founders didn’t and couldn’t completely predict the political environment of the two party system that exists today which obviously can’t be expected of them. Just because we know that the world will no exist in three years, I don’t think we can expect that they would have been able to predict our politics today and design a system that could completely and accurately fit with them. I don’t mean to say that it doesn’t fit as it does still seem to work remarkably well after two hundred years, but I do think that we can look at certain aspects of our government in order to see if what the founders decided mesh with today’s world. One of those things, I think, is the four-year presidency and two-term limit. As we talked about the length of the four-year term in class the other day, I struggled to formulate my thoughts into a clear and coherent argument for either side. It seems as if there are pros and cons to each, and for whatever reason, it was decided that the four-year term would be the best option.

With the four-year presidency, I think the president is made more accountable to the people and is forced to making sure that what he does meshes with what the public wants because if it doesn’t he likely won’t be reelected. He is forced to build cooperation quickly in order to pressure the quick passage of legislation within his four short years. The president is forced to focus on the few things that he wants to accomplish, which often times isn’t enough as our system is designed to be so slow. The good news is that if the president is doing a good job, he has the ability to be reelected and to be rewarded for what he is doing. The down side of this is if the president starts to wear out and is becoming old news by the end of his second term, he is very rarely effective. Also, the president has to start worrying about reelection shortly after being elected and has very little time to focus on the issues that he wants to focus on.

The six-year presidency of one term certainly seems enticing, as it would allow the president to focus on his work for the entire time he is in office. The down side to it is that he would no longer be as accountable to the people. Certainly there is the option of impeachment by Congress, but for the most part, I think that what the president would choose to do while in office wouldn’t be an impeachable offense, but instead might be something that just goes against what those who elected him want. I hesitate to think that most presidential candidates would promise things and do completely the opposite, but it really is a very real possibility.

The other side of it is that if what the president does during his term is unfavorable he is ineligible for reelection anyway.  Or, if what the president accomplishes during his term is very well liked, then hopefully he has been in power long enough and has built cooperation effectively enough to complete most of his vision. Also, the six years that he is in office would be close to equal the amount of time presidents now have in two terms as current presidents have to worry about reelection.

It seems that this longer term, would give the president more of a chance to build cooperation between the two parties, which would create the opportunity for more rapid change to occur. But even if he is able to attain cooperation from all sides and support for the policies he wants Congress to enact, Congress is still ultimately the decider. In the end, the president doesn’t have the final say on what passes and what doesn’t. Congress does.

If this six year presidency were instated, it might not be as the founders wanted it, but there are some things that need to change that likely aren’t going to change quickly enough under the current system, unless the majority of the people want it which may not happen until it is too late. Sometimes I think that our system is too slow, and that some of the change is too long in coming and that it would be much more beneficial and healthy for our country to enact that change sooner which won’t happen unless there is collaboration and cooperation. So, I am in favor of the longer presidency as I think that there would be a greater possibility for change to occur in our system, change that is sorely needed. Or was sorely needed, a while ago.

I hope this doesn’t sound like I think that the president will have a lot more power although he will have some, I think.  What I mean for it so say is that having a longer term in which the president doesn’t have to worry about anything other than the issues at hand, and doesn’t have to worry about reelection or offending his party (much), he will be in a more centered position from which to govern, over the parties, not apart of them. He can be more of a non-partisan leader that I think will have an easier time to build consensus on issues and therefore will have an easier time accomplishing his goals and carrying out his vision.

Advertisement