So now the talk is about Bush’s legacy. Only after a president has won a second term does the press talk about a “legacy”. Shouldn’t a president always be thinking about a legacy, i.e., something that he transmits to future generations? Why should he be more concerned with what he’s passing on to our children, grandchildren and other future residents of this country and this planet in his second term rather than in his first term?
One reason is that much of his first term is spent trying to make sure that he does win a second term. How much time, effort and dollars does any president waste in term 1 wooing the electorate? Would we all not be much better off if the president concentrated all his energies and powers on solving today’s problems and trying to avoid the problems of tomorrow?
Why can’t we simply eliminate the problem of the second term by amending the Constitution so that the president serves a single six year term? We’ve changed the term of the president before. Article XXII of the Constitution, passed in 1951, limited the president to serving two four-year terms.
There has been something wrong in the state of our elections for a long term. Allowing a president to serve two terms is one of the things that is wrong.
1 comment:
I don't know if that would be a wise decision or not. It would be unfortunate if a truly exceptional president were only allowed four or six years. I guess all democratic systems are designed with the intention of removing a bad leader after his/her initial term, by the simple use of the ballot box. The flaw occurs when there is a polarized electorate, as was the case recently in America, and an obviously bad leader sneaks back in on issues only of import to political extremists; or those living in fear for their own security.
It does seem to be a fact of life that even good leaders turn sour on the electorate when allowed to continue in office too long. Margaret Thatcher was the perfect example. Tony Blair may well prove to be another. The political landscape in Britain presently resembles that of the U.S. Many Brits would love to be rid of Blair, but the alternative of Michael Howard and the Tory Party is even less acceptable. I personally liked John Kerry and believed his ‘flip-flopping’ resulted from him thinking out each issue before he acted on it; but it seems too many Americans did not.
Post a Comment