Do those of you who favor term limits also think it would have been better for the US if FDR had been limited to two terms?

[quote1253543660=nougat]
Do those of you who favor term limits also think it would have been better for the US if FDR had been limited to two terms?
[/quote1253543660]


Yes.

Eldge, right. I knew conservatives generally felt that way. Do you ever wish Reagan had had four terms?

I can think of two ways for someone to be in favor of term limits: (1) the Presidential power, given enough time, will shape government, will tune everything to the vision of the President and his advisors; and this is bad for all of us; (2) the people need to be checked in their enthusiasm a little, because they tend to vote for the incumbent, for the recognized name.

Edit: Eldge, this is somewhat digressive, but does your judgment of FDR extend to his foreign policy as well as his social and legal agenda? Do you think the war could have been better prosecuted (or avoided altogether), the Soviet Union handled differently (he has been accused of naivete and weakness in his dealings with Stalin), etc.?

Given that great leaders are not common, it's better to limit their office to just two terms... after all, laws are best suited to ordinary circumstances... if only the most extraordinary circumstances may be given special privileges, without necessarily breaking the law...

How does the limit fare against tyranny? Will the tyrant lose his power, having been able to manipulate the votes nationally? I'm thinking about the case in Iran. Without the second-term limit, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is likely to abuse his power (and we'll see how much sanction would change the situation... eager to hear more news about the Russian backing for a coup). But if the second-term limit is employed, who will take Mahmoud's place? Not someone Mahmoud can control?

[quote1253816434=Leonitis]
One doesn't have to look far for examples of a ruling party
using the instruments of state to help keep it in power.
The US system of 'checks and balances' acknowledges that any
branch of government is susceptible. Even the governmental system
of the USSR was set up with a distrust of ultimate power, with the
party, the military, and the intelligence wings maneuvering and
purging on and on. The executive seat carries
the most concentrated power. It has become almost imperial at times.
[/quote1253816434]

I think this is the practical reason. The apparatus of the executive branch can subtly influence behavior. One concrete instance in the US, in my view, was the stream of "alerts" prior to Bush's re-election. I know Tom Ridge has disputed that he was (directly) influenced, but I believe there was a red alert days before the election. Frankly, I don't think there was a single one after the election.

I think term limits are healthy as a general principle, even though there may be examples where it would be better for someone to hold on. NY's Mayor Bloomberg may fit this mold. As much as I like him, hearing his TV commercials - paid with his fortune - to sustain his reign irks me. But the Philosopher-King Obama has my proxy and can stay as long as he wants

The best test case for this is central and south america. The countries that run best, the freest and most successful, put strict term limits on their leaders. In fact in a few well thought out constitutions in central america there are clauses that remove the president from power if he or she even tries to amend term limits out of the constitution itself. That is to avoid the erosion of the rule of law that so happens in latin america when despots get themselves permanently put into power by manipulating the voting process. Empowering, say, the military to take a guy out of power after 2 terms regardless removes the danger of that kind of manipulation.

And there is too much chance for manipulation in any circumstance. Media comes under control, etc. President after president has used questionable means to increase control, and often their activities are not investigated or fully come to light until later presidents take over. I'm talking about using the IRS to go after enemies, etc. Term limits are anti-democratic. That's OK with me. The Founding Fathers weren't worshipers of democracy, nor should they have been. They well knew that the possibility of a democratic tyranny existed. Smart guys. They put checks and balances in, and term limits fit perfectly within their framework. Much of the checks and balances were eroded almost immediately after they were put in, this one being instituted is a small, small move back to what the original vision of this country really was. The judgeocracy in this country, for instance, disgusts me. The story behind the removal of the primary check on judicial power by congress is an interesting one, and we've been sliding the wrong direction ever since.

The problem, kvn, is judgments of 'excellence' in leaders is highly subjective epistemically speaking (I do believe in great leaders, but I think making that judgment is too interest-relative and context-sensitive to hold with any certainty). Most people are better at some things than others. I'm not an Obama fan, but I can point to things he's done quite well, and things he's done poorly at. That seems true of most anyone. The demonization or idolization of a leader always strikes me as suspect. And given that most people have a plurality of skills, and weaknesses, I don't think anyone has some inherent right to extended power. And I take Lord Acton's axiom to be damn near a law of human nature, so given time even the best leader becomes less-good. What's more the sign of the best leaders is often the de-emphasis of power one oneself. That's what made Washington so great, that he COULD'VE made himself a permanent king but chose not to. He self-instituted term limits, he refused a royal designation, he sought opposing forces in his cabinet, he sought to reduce his own power. So, paradoxically, the very desire to hold onto power longer is a sign, to me, that the person shouldn't have it.

I'm not going to get into FDR. Sufficed to say he had his good and bad points, but I think his idealization by some in this country is mostly based on a vast misrepresentation of historical facts. And most historians nowadays, certainly most economists, don't look at him with the rose colored glasses they once did. So much the better.