If we were to draw up a new Constitution, what would we decide? One presidential term, two or an unlimited number?
For reasons that are somewhat lost in history, we have a two term presidency. We can say that it was because Franklin Delano Roosevelt had four terms. Or we can say that there were other, better reasons. To really find out, we would have to do more research than we have time for, since the end result depends on the reasons stated by each state when voting on the Constitutional amendment.
Two terms have worked in the past. The news was fairly even and had less control over what happened. The most followed and respected news was neither for the good of the party or set up for the betterment of one's historical resume.
Yet, today more than ever before, we are forced to consider whether the outlandish amount of money spent, the benefit of a sustained presidency, and other political and national reasons are of any benefit to our country or just to a party or the incumbent president.
For some, a single term makes a lot of sense.
We would have no political chicanery or outright lies, as we have had over the last few weeks. No UN ambassador would be saying anything about the reasons behind foreign demonstrations, which is after all not her job, and no excuses would be made for a president's Middle East policies. Also, we would have no rancor over the slightest statement by someone else, changing the tangent of the election from time to time, nor any claims that comments dealing with foreign policy should not have been made.
We forget that Jimmy Carter told us that our system of elections was fraught with more problems than many other countries, including some if not all of the underdeveloped countries he helped with their own elections after leaving office.
The most important fact today is that we have a president more interested in getting reelected than any other in history. The man who parted oceans is now seeking to cement his place in history. And, sadly, that place is getting tarnished more and more because of the unbelievable time being spent campaigning.
Forget whether this is the same amount as any other. The major point is that we need no symbol. We need a president in the White House responsible for and actually running the country.
As far as the current election, with Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney and Republicans versus Democrats, these and other reasons have removed us from reality, posed increasing tensions, and failed to consolidate a government under Obama.
If we were in a parliamentary government, Obama would be gone if only the House of Representatives decided, and perhaps if the votes had meant more, both the Senate and House would be voting to remove him. With a parliament, you need to have the support of government. They recognize that stonewalling can otherwise happen.
There there is no reason to believe that a Constitutional amendment limiting terms would affect that equation, yet I believe if Obama had not been running for president, we would have seen more compromise.
Please note the two polls and vote.
Do we need a single term president?
How long should that term be?