Yes, the idea of a single-term, 6-year presidency has been considered since the days of our founding. Arthur Schlesinger summarizes the arguments against it in an op-ed piece 25 years ago. He makes many good points, but they were based on the presidents and the political processes of the 20th century.
This is not the same America of which Schlesinger wrote. The country has deteriorated quite a bit since 1986. None of the presidents we have had in that time will be considered among our great presidents. The last two presidents will certainly wind up on the list of our worst presidents. And, as is pretty obvious, the quality of all of our federal leaders is nowhere near what it was. The 21st century political climate is a lot different than that of the 20th. It will not get better, so we should change our system to minimize the problems that will occur and will linger for longer and longer periods of time, as the opening decade of the 21st century has shown us.
At this point you´re probably saying isn´t it good that Obama will only serve four years. It is true that four calendar years will have elapsed by next November, but how much of that time has been spent in reelection mode. It will be at least two, probably more years - years in which he should have been working for us. Furthermore, Obama is a classic example of the difference between a candidate and a doer. No matter what he says on the stump, it is quite unlikely his personality and style will change. So that he will always lack the courage to be a true leader. I fear that the Republicans will not offer a serious challenger and we will sink further and further toward mediocrity.
The nation needs a leader. A one-term presidency might help.
No comments:
Post a Comment