Solving Presidential Politics

As President Bush is about to begin his second term in office, he might be weary of it. While a second term is often seen as the product of a successful first (although this is very debatable given Bush's re-election), history hasn't been exactly on two-termers sides. The last three presidents to survive re-election have seen there second administrations mired in scandal: Watergate, Iran-Contra, and impeachment respectively.

Presidents also tend to become lame-ducks in their second terms when it comes to the domestic agenda because the opposition party in Congress works to stall their proposals, and their own party, feeling no longer any need to be united behind the president after re-election, tries to seize the agenda itself (as we are seeing now with Bush and Republicans on Social Security and immigration reform). This is why presidents tend to turn to foreign policy in their second term.

So what is my solution? Well, how about a single six-year term?

This way, presidents can govern for six years without having to play politics to get re-elected. They can say what they really want and go for it. I wonder if Eisenhower and Clinton could not have accomplished more, even with a Congress controlled by the other party, without having to worry about politics.

The truth is, presidents only can possibily govern this long anyway. If they aren't a lame duck already, they certainly are by the last two years. Even FDR who was elected to four terms accomplished most of what he did in his first six years.

Some will say that this will remove accountability, but I haven't really seen any under the current system. Most presidents don't get into trouble until they've already been re-elected, and for others like Bush, the mistakes of their first term weren't enough anyway. What I think is better is the prospect that the politics of president re-election doesn't intermix with that of Congressional and other elections in the country. How many Bush voters this year would have voted so solidly Republican or voted at all if Bush wasn't up for re-election?

I can't say this is the best reform, but I do think that history isn't exactly on the side of two-term presidents. Maybe those who aspire to the office themselves may find this more appealing as well.