If anything, the arguments made by James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn demonstrated the viability of -- not the need to eliminate -- term limits for Presidents, perhaps to the point where we elect Presidents to a single term (see entire text of the MacGregor Burns & Susan Dunn Op-Ed piece immediately following this column, below). Their argument that “Second-Term Blues” or “Second Termitis” could be avoided by Presidents who falter in their second terms allegedly because they are lame ducks severely misstates historical facts. Those facts actually lead to conclusions diametrically opposed to those espoused by the two esteemed historians.

Richard Nixon’s “Watergate” was due to extraordinary arrogance and the desire to stay in power. Perpetuating those attributes for a third or even a fourth would have been anything but a good idea. Bill Clinton’s impeachment was due to his bad judgment and a partisan Congress which resented him -- and which shut down the Federal Government unintentionally creating the empty Oval Office opportunity for his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. The fact Clinton was in his second term had nothing to do with his impeachment.

Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra Affair was born of an imperial presidency and was not a direction which needed reinforcement with an additional term. The historians also conveniently have forgotten President Reagan’s illness. A third term would not have served him or the nation well, given his tragic affliction with Alzheimer’s disease. And George W. Bush’s troubles are not as disconcerting to him as they are to the historians who do not understand him. He is doing what he wants to do, irrespective of what others perceive as a lack of success.

Giving Presidents the opportunity for additional terms misguidedly presumes a net benefit to the nation. The proposal also overlooks the political reality that it is difficult and could become nearly impossible to unseat an incumbent, especially with the change in campaign finance rules. Why create the potential for a perpetual presidency?

Contrary to the historians’ case, one could argue having a second term without the direct constraint of ingratiating reelection politics allows a President the opportunity to pursue an agenda he or she feels is in the best interests of the nation. Often such an agenda is suppressed due to the candidate’s fear of what the personal political implications may be. A President freed from that limitation -- although still somewhat constrained by a concern about the impacts of any chosen course on his or her political party -- is a President with greater license to lead.

Too often today, political leaders do not lead. They analyze what the latest polls say and confine their policies to the leeway granted by special interests and public opinion. With second terms partially unfettering that constraint, Presidents should have even greater opportunities to be bold and propose unpopular initiatives they believe are best for the nation.

What MacGregor Burns and Dunn miss is the reason why their historical citations involve failure or personal catastrophe. It was due to these Presidents being both insensitive to how they would be judged historically that they chose destructive paths at times. In some cases, their decisions may be seen as a relatively minor blot on their record (e.g., Reagan’s Iran-Contra Affair or Bush’s economic stumbling) while others became the preeminent recollection of most people (e.g., Nixon’s “Watergate” or Clinton’s impeachment).

The real issue missed by the two distinguished historians is the fact many Presidents fail to chart a course to achieve a public policy legacy for themselves and their nation. Instead of taking office with substantive goals and a leadership plan, they get caught up in the awesome responsibilities of being President and the all-consuming day-to-day machinations of governance as well as the unpredictable historical events occurring during their tenures.

While it is true some new Presidents come with partials plans -- such as to reduce the burden of government -- few have specific, nation-inspiring goals. Examples might include ending poverty, establishing honest accounting in government, creating better opportunities for children, reversing the international image of the United States, eliminating racism, or even bringing peace to the world.

Historical accidents aside, achievements at those levels are what create legacies. Sadly, too many Presidents have realized this at the end of their terms rather than at the beginning. If anything, the historical evidence argues for term limits to get “new blood” in office as soon as possible. What we need to do is encourage our Presidents to truly lead and challenge us -- not prop them up in office indefinitely while we all grow old together.

---

Aaron Harber hosts "The Aaron Harber Show," seen Fridays at 9:00 pm and Sundays at 2:00 pm on PBS Station KBDI-TV Channel 12. Please go to www.HarberTV.com for more information. Send your comments and topic suggestions for both columns and TV shows to Aaron@HarberTV.com. You also may view programs on a 24/7 basis via the “Broadcast Videos” section of the Website. Many of Aaron's columns also are available on the Website on the page entitled “Aaron’s Opinions.” You often can find them in The Colorado Statesman (www.ColoradoStatesman.com) as well as in The Denver Daily News (www.DenverDailyNews.com).

January 5, 2006

Op-Ed Contributor
No More Second-Term Blues

By JAMES MacGREGOR BURNS and SUSAN DUNN

Williamstown, Mass.

AS George W. Bush's leadership flounders a little more than a year after his re-election, we are seeing a return of an old affliction in American politics, "second termitis." The protracted woes of Richard Nixon's Watergate, Ronald Reagan's Iran-contra affair, and Bill Clinton's impeachment were all, in part, manifestations of that malady.

Is there some human failing that affects second-term presidents, like arrogance or sheer fatigue? To some degree, perhaps. But the main problem is not personal but institutional - or rather constitutional, as embodied by the 22nd Amendment limiting presidential tenure.

A second-term president will, in effect, automatically be fired within four years. Inevitably his influence over Congress, and even his authority over the sprawling executive branch, weaken. His party leadership frays as presidential hopefuls carve out their own constituencies for the next election. Whether the president is trying to tamp down scandal or push legislation, he loses his ability to set the agenda.

But whether or not a president has a diminished second term, the amendment barring a third term presents the broader and more serious question of his accountability to the people.

While political commentators analyze every twist in White House politics, while citizens follow dramatic stories of leaks, investigations and indictments, the one person who does not have to care is George W. Bush. In a sense, he has transcended the risks and rewards of American politics. He will not run again for office. The voters will not be able to thank him - or dump him.

And yet accountability to the people is at the heart of a democratic system.

There was nothing in the original Constitution of 1787 that barred a third or fourth term for presidents. That was why Franklin Delano Roosevelt could run again in 1940 and 1944, becoming the only president to serve more than two terms. And that was why, three years later, in 1947, after sporadic public debate, Republicans demanded presidential term limits and changed the Constitution.

With majorities in both chambers of Congress, Republicans, joined by Southern Democrats opposed to the New Deal, were able to push the 22nd Amendment through the House (after only two hours of debate!) and the Senate (after five days of debate). At the time, an amendment limiting presidents to two terms in office seemed an effective way to invalidate Roosevelt's legacy, to discredit this most progressive of presidents. In the House, one of the few Northern Democrats to vote with the majority was freshman representative John F. Kennedy, whose father had fallen out with Roosevelt. In the spring of 1947, as the historian David Kyvig noted, 18 state legislatures rushed to ratify the amendment, with virtually no public participation in the debate. By 1951, the required three-fourths of the state legislatures had ratified it.

While George Washington limited himself to two terms, it had never been his intention to create a precedent. Washington didn't want to die in office and have the succession appear "monarchical." But his primary reason for retiring was simply that after a lifetime of public service, he was bone-tired, desperate to return to the tranquillity of Mount Vernon.

Washington's close confidant Alexander Hamilton also had firmly opposed presidential term limits. In Federalist No. 72, Hamilton argued that term limits for the chief executive would diminish inducements to good behavior, discourage presidents from undertaking bold new projects, deny the nation the advantage of his experience and threaten political stability. For his part, Washington added that term limits would exclude from the presidency a man whose leadership might be essential in a time of emergency.

Should presidents - whether George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton - be denied the opportunity to serve their country and carry through their programs? Should they be allowed to govern without any accountability to voters? Should voters be denied two supreme powers - the right to give popular presidents more terms in office and to repudiate a failed president at the polls? "We ought to take a serious look and see if we haven't interfered with the democratic rights of the people," Ronald Reagan said in 1986.

Some defenders of the 22nd Amendment might argue that an incumbent second-term president would have an even more formidable and undeserved advantage in recognition, experience and the prestige of his office today than in the 1940's. But the power of incumbency may actually decrease with time. After his landslide victory for a second term in 1936, Roosevelt saw his popular vote drop in 1940 and even more in 1944.

And what about an unfair head start in campaign fund-raising? Presidential incumbents already have a significant advantage, but not necessarily an overwhelming one, especially with campaign finance reform. In a democratic republic, only the Constitution should trump the will of the majority, not the economic vicissitudes of the campaign trail.

Since 1956, many bipartisan resolutions to repeal the 22nd Amendment have been submitted to Congress - and gone nowhere. The most recent one to be buried in a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee was proposed last February. Oddly, both the current chairman of that committee, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, and the former chairman, Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, both Republicans, have in the past co-sponsored resolutions to repeal the amendment.

Hasn't the time come for Congress and the voters to revoke an authoritarian, barely considered amendment? Republicans, who revere "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution and who applaud the rise of the conservative movement, should welcome the possibility of a three- or four-term Republican president, thus avoiding "second termitis."

And Democrats, as they contemplate the century that lies ahead, can hope that in another world crisis, this misbegotten amendment will not be there to bar a future Franklin Roosevelt from offering the kind of leadership that he provided in the 1940's.

James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn teach at Williams College and are the authors of "George Washington" and "The Three Roosevelts: Patrician Leaders Who Transformed America."

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company