A Republican House member introduced a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow President Donald Trump — and any other future president — to be elected to serve a third term.
A Republican House member introduced a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow President Donald Trump — and any other future president — to be elected to serve a third term.
There’s arguments to be made for and against. On one hand, no term limits means someone can focus on governing, rather than constantly running a campaign. Incumbents often have to do less work in this regard because they’re already established. On the other, it means it’s harder to remove incumbents. You see this a lot in local elections where people often run unopposed. They get elected anyway, regardless of their performance.
Some places will just make the terms longer (such as 10 years or more) so a candidate will want to leave office, yet still have time to accomplish what they want. One of the US’s problems is we’re on four year cycles for president and 2 year cycles for congress. This is especially deceptive because of the delay between laws passing and the effects of those laws being seen. The economy is one example. We don’t see the consequences of a president’s economic policies until nearly the end of their second term due to turnover, people moving, companies setting up 5 year plans, stock dividends, etc.
So term limits make a lot of sense in ineffectual systems of government that are more focused on the spectacle of campaigning and elections than the actual governing? I can definitely see how political apathy would lead to incumbents running unopposed but I’m not sure I understand how a lack of term limits automatically benefit the incumbent, other in the fact that they literally have to step down once they reach the limit.
The incumbent has a track record whole the challengers are unknown. If the incumbent is doing fine, they have a huge advantage in that people know they will keep things chugging along roughly the same.
In addition to what Sodium said, incumbents have resources from their office to use, plus they don’t have to deal with bureaucracies other candidates have to go through.
For example, an incumbent meets on a regular basis with the press as part of their position. When campaign season rolls around, they already know the media organizations used to spread their platform. A newer candidate doesn’t have access to those same channels. Then stuff like Bush raising “terrorism possibilities” during his 2004 campaign against John Kerry, something Kerry couldn’t do.
As for the bureaucratic portion, a newer candidate might have to do something like collect signatures in order to run. Their campaign has to spend time going door to door before they’re even on the ballot, just to get on the ballot. The incumbent, however, is automatically on the ballot so their campaign can focus on things like donors. You see this a lot in Congress with party leaders, such as Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell. In order to primary Pelosi, a person has to go through a lengthy process in her district to even attempt removing her, then actually running a campaign to remove her. Meanwhile, Pelosi gets to talk to people she’s met through her office, stacking up on donors, endorsements, favors, etc.