Comments on: One and Done http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:39:23 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: amba http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/comment-page-1/#comment-87363 amba Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:50:30 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/#comment-87363 <i>president accused of starting war in order not to give up power</i> Wag the Hog. president accused of starting war in order not to give up power

Wag the Hog.

]]> By: amba http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/comment-page-1/#comment-87357 amba Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:47:51 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/#comment-87357 I've long advocated this, but with the possibility of a second 4-year term in extraordinary circumstances -- wartime, e.g., or conversely, a really excellent president in the midst of doing great things -- but with a very high bar: two-thirds of Congress and a landslide popular referendum. It should be the rare exception, not something to aspire to (I can already see the scenarios: president accused of starting war in order not to give up power). I can't stand the way first-term presidents hit the ground campaigning and policy becomes all about politics from Day One. The president ought to be a little above partisanship, and making him (or her) virtually un-reelectable might help to create that kind of disinterestedness. Legacy would be all. I’ve long advocated this, but with the possibility of a second 4-year term in extraordinary circumstances — wartime, e.g., or conversely, a really excellent president in the midst of doing great things — but with a very high bar: two-thirds of Congress and a landslide popular referendum. It should be the rare exception, not something to aspire to (I can already see the scenarios: president accused of starting war in order not to give up power).

I can’t stand the way first-term presidents hit the ground campaigning and policy becomes all about politics from Day One. The president ought to be a little above partisanship, and making him (or her) virtually un-reelectable might help to create that kind of disinterestedness. Legacy would be all.

]]> By: Callimachus http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/comment-page-1/#comment-21851 Callimachus Thu, 18 May 2006 05:39:46 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/#comment-21851 Bob, you're right, I was reflexively defaulting to base 10. Bob, you’re right, I was reflexively defaulting to base 10.

]]> By: New Reader http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/comment-page-1/#comment-21670 New Reader Thu, 18 May 2006 02:06:33 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/#comment-21670 At first, I was in favor of term limits for every member of government, in every branch of government (so, e.g. no lifetime appoints to the federal bench, just a 1 term deal set at, e.g. 15 years.) But I've changed my mind about the President. In domestic affairs, a term-limited President becomes a lame-duck. In foreign affairs (and military/security), it is another matter. If you term-limit a politician how is forced to politic in order to accomplish something, then the lack of voters is enfeebling: the closer you are to an election, the more politics becomes about that election. If you aren't in it, you can't do politics, so you can't accomplish your goals. So, in domestic policy, a second-term President slowly become enfeebled. However, in foreign affairs, a President can accomplish all sorts of policy goals (whether trade, security, etc.) largely without domestic politics. Here, the lack of voters actually *strengthens* the President, because they cannot threaten him with anything. So, I'm not sure that doing a 1-term Presidency is a great idea, from the foreign and security perspectives. Of course, if more of this power were shared and checked by other branches of government, then a 1 term Presidency would make better sense. (of course, if 1 party controls the legislature and the executive, then you regain much of the same problem again.) At first, I was in favor of term limits for every member of government, in every branch of government (so, e.g. no lifetime appoints to the federal bench, just a 1 term deal set at, e.g. 15 years.)

But I’ve changed my mind about the President. In domestic affairs, a term-limited President becomes a lame-duck. In foreign affairs (and military/security), it is another matter.

If you term-limit a politician how is forced to politic in order to accomplish something, then the lack of voters is enfeebling: the closer you are to an election, the more politics becomes about that election. If you aren’t in it, you can’t do politics, so you can’t accomplish your goals. So, in domestic policy, a second-term President slowly become enfeebled.

However, in foreign affairs, a President can accomplish all sorts of policy goals (whether trade, security, etc.) largely without domestic politics. Here, the lack of voters actually *strengthens* the President, because they cannot threaten him with anything.

So, I’m not sure that doing a 1-term Presidency is a great idea, from the foreign and security perspectives. Of course, if more of this power were shared and checked by other branches of government, then a 1 term Presidency would make better sense. (of course, if 1 party controls the legislature and the executive, then you regain much of the same problem again.)

]]> By: GN http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/comment-page-1/#comment-21400 GN Tue, 16 May 2006 20:29:33 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/#comment-21400 Um down wit it. wun en dun. Um down wit it. wun en dun.

]]> By: Paul Brinkley http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/comment-page-1/#comment-21386 Paul Brinkley Tue, 16 May 2006 17:12:13 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/#comment-21386 I can respect the job experience argument, yes. And frankly, it may be a net plus to our society. There are probably more elected officials who improved with experience and parlayed that into genuinely better representation of their constituents, then there are those who concentrated primarily on tactical campaigning tricks to keep their name at the top of the polls. On the other hand, it may be that with the one-on, two-off rule, the elected could still gather job experience in the off years, via unelected positions such as chief of staff, cabinet staff, or advisor. This might even be healthy, as they would be performing civil service in an environment where they don't have to worry about public image (as much) for a while. I can respect the job experience argument, yes. And frankly, it may be a net plus to our society. There are probably more elected officials who improved with experience and parlayed that into genuinely better representation of their constituents, then there are those who concentrated primarily on tactical campaigning tricks to keep their name at the top of the polls.

On the other hand, it may be that with the one-on, two-off rule, the elected could still gather job experience in the off years, via unelected positions such as chief of staff, cabinet staff, or advisor. This might even be healthy, as they would be performing civil service in an environment where they don’t have to worry about public image (as much) for a while.

]]> By: Pooh http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/comment-page-1/#comment-21327 Pooh Tue, 16 May 2006 02:37:44 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/#comment-21327 Joshua, I'm not sure. One can imagine a situation where legislators become better at their job (rather than better at <i>keeping</i> there job) through experience. Though considering the structural advantages enjoyed especially by house members (Franking, gerrymandered districts) maybe it is a good idea. Joshua, I’m not sure. One can imagine a situation where legislators become better at their job (rather than better at keeping there job) through experience. Though considering the structural advantages enjoyed especially by house members (Franking, gerrymandered districts) maybe it is a good idea.

]]> By: Bob Aman http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/comment-page-1/#comment-21324 Bob Aman Tue, 16 May 2006 01:53:22 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/#comment-21324 /me points out that the math is messed up. 6 year term + 10 year wait is exactly the same as a 6 year term + 12 year wait. /me points out that the math is messed up.

6 year term + 10 year wait is exactly the same as a 6 year term + 12 year wait.

]]> By: Joshua http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/comment-page-1/#comment-21316 Joshua Tue, 16 May 2006 00:31:16 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/15/one-and-done/#comment-21316 I like it. In fact, why stop with just the presidency? I'd also be in favor of a similar provision for members of both houses of Congress. Think of it as a check against other people's Representatives and Senators (and other people's check against yours, of course). I like it.

In fact, why stop with just the presidency? I’d also be in favor of a similar provision for members of both houses of Congress. Think of it as a check against other people’s Representatives and Senators (and other people’s check against yours, of course).

]]>