MetaFilter: Fearless leader forever!. ⇒
15 June 2005, mid-afternoon
I wonder if the US would go mental if Bush managed to run for a third term.
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
Kinda off topic, but are foreign-born Canadian citizens allowed to become Prime Ministers?
by martha on June 15 2005, 10:30 pm #
I think the bill has more to do with Bill Clinton’s desire to run again. He has openly criticized the term limits.
Of course the one who really abused the term limits (or lack thereof) was FDR. He also had plans to pack the Supreme Court by increasing the bench from 9 to 15.
I am not sure on consecutive terms. But what should prevent someone to run again say after a few years? Kind of like Chirac. Wasn’t he the president of France in the 70’s?
by Sunny on June 15 2005, 10:54 pm #
1) There will be no foreign born US Presidents. (Unless they change the constitution for Schwarzenegger).
2) No term limits existed when FDR was in office, so how could he have abused them?
3) It’s curious that Bush & the US government are criticizing Putin for trying to accumulating more power (there is strong suspicion that he will try to change the term limit rules so he can stay for a third term) when there are fellow Republicans who suggest doing the same for Bush…
by Ryan on June 16 2005, 12:49 am #
Ryan,
Of course no term limits existed. But it was a unspoken rule that was followed until FDR decided to abuse it. Read Washington’s farewell speech.
Fellow Republicans may suggest it, but its not going to happen. BTW, last time I checked, the bill was sponsored by the Democratic Whip. But why let facts intervene in a good story?
by Sunny on June 16 2005, 4:34 am #
It is also sponsored by Congressman Sensenbrenner, who is a Republican. So there is no factual error in my earlier statement.
FDR never campaigned for an opportunity at a third term. At the start of convention a letter was read on his behalf that began “I and other close friends of the President have long known that he has no wish to be a candidate again.” However, he nominated by the Democratic National Convention and accepted. “If nominated and elected, I could not in these times refuse to take the inaugural oath, even if I knew I would be dead in thirty days.” Moreover, the electorate did not value the two-term precedent enough to prevent him for being re-elected a third and fourth time. So one could argue that describing his actions as “abusive” is a misrepresentation.
by Ryan on June 16 2005, 5:46 am #
No its not. The majority is not always right. If your suggestion that the bill in question is just a Republican tool is not a misrepresentation, then my observation that FDR abused his authority is not a misrepresentation. It was considered serious enough to warrant an amendment.
The Democratic National Convention is not the Congress. It is not representative of the people. Both conventions are shams in which decisions are made long before even the meeting takes place. If FDR had chosen to, he could have stepped aside. He abused his power by deciding to run. Personally, I believe, given the circumstances, it was probably wise that he stayed. But he defied a long held tradition. However he may choose sugarcoat it, the reality will not change.
And of course he was elected. He was a popular president who given his own physical limitations was a brave and stoic leader. Yet, there was no reason for him to hold onto power. And except LBJ, no wartime president has ever lost an election.
So term limits are a good thing? yes. Did the circumstances warrant that FDR should have stayed over the two terms? maybe. His decision to hold on to power, even under physical duress? wrong.
by Sunny on June 16 2005, 8:42 am #
FYI, LBJ never lost a presidential election. In 1968, he declined to seek a second term, thus avoiding certain defeat and cleverly handing off the problems of Vietnam, exploding black ghettos and a screwed up economy to others.
by LBJfanclub on June 16 2005, 1:09 pm #
Thanks for pointing out the oversight LBJfanclub. It just makes my point even more stronger—no president has lost an election during wartime.
All the criticism of LBJ aside (I mean he lied and expanded a war, ‘great society’ was a bust…does this sound familiar?), he atleast had the balls to stand up against the Southern Democrats and get the Civil Rights legislation passed through Congress. He could have just ignored it like his Playboy predecessor, but he didn’t. And that will be his lasting legacy.
by Sunny on June 17 2005, 12:43 am #
Sunny, you infer way too much. :-)
A. I neither said the majority was right in this instance nor that the majority is always right. I simply mean to dispute your application of the word “abuse”.
Consider the definition of “abuse” (e.g. From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abuse)
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
etc.
My point was that:
(a) There is evidence that circumstances led Roosevelt to run again as opposed to Roosevelt actively creating a scenario favourable for himself. Therefore, I’m not sure that definition 1 holds.
(b) The electorate was aware of the “unwritten rule”, but chose to re-elect Roosevelt anyway. Therefore, the electorate must not have felt injured. So definition 2 does not hold.
Whence, I fail to see why the situation warrants being described as “abuse”.
B. I did not describe the bill as a “Republican tool”. I was trying to convey the irony that one portion of the (Republican) US government criticizes others for actions that another portion of the government (arguably) appears to be doing themselves. (The explicit reference to President Bush perhaps reads too much into the situation, but it makes the point concrete and ties it into Ram’s original comment).
(e.g. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=curious)
Curious:
3. Arousing interest because of novelty or strangeness: a curious fact.
by Ryan on June 17 2005, 1:32 am #
Ryan, point taken. Apologies.
It may also seem that somehow I am a Bush or Republican apologist. Although I play the devil’s advocate on most political posts at Funkaoshi, it’s just part of me that wants to consider all aspects of an issue.
As for as the FDR ‘abuse’ argument, let’s just put it as a personal beef. I think he misused his power. He was not physically fit for the majority of his term(s). He also knew that as an immensely popular and war-time president, it was very unlikely that somebody would challenge him. He could have stepped aside. Nobody, not even the Democratic National Convention can force someone to run. So that defense is hogwash.
I’ll also admit that my views of FDR are also colored by his social beliefs. The man was blatantly racist. I do understand that, given the circumstances then, it was to be expected. But his mistreatment of Japanese Americans (Executive Order 9066), his beliefs that Asians couldn’t be assimilated to America, his plans to deport all people of Japanese ancestry from Hawaii (and Hawaii was not even a State then), his complete rejection of evidence of Jewish genocide at the hands of Nazis etc. And most importantly, he stood hand in hand with the practice of segregation. His most vaunted social programs, the New Deal which transcends him to the status of most successful US president in history, was not available to the group that needed it most – suffering Blacks in the South.
So yeah, I am biased. I know, this has nothing to do with the previous argument, but it will give you an idea of my motivations.
by Sunny on June 17 2005, 2:59 am #
No worries. This debate and the Cuba one were interesting. :-)
Keeping an open mind of a good thing. I haven’t really thought of FDR in that context, but I’ll have to keep it in mind. (Sadly, Canada’s actions were just as bad – the Japanese internment stands out as one of the most shameful pieces of Canadian history).
by Ryan on June 18 2005, 5:39 am #
My junior year in high school, our US History teacher took us to Manzanar. It was one of the first Japanese internment camps. Virtually in the middle of no where in California. Actually, it was a scenic valley but you could still feel the sadness and frustration of the Japanese interned there. By the way, the Japanese internment received a cursory glance in our textbook and my teacher wanted us to really see it.
What really moved me was the little projects that the detainees did. There was a small swimming pool, a rock garden etc. An attempt for them to get some sort of normalcy in their shattered lives.
On a family trip, I took my parents there as well. My father actually started questioning our desire to settle in the US! It actually may have something to do with why we are in Australia today. Not that Australia has a rosy history in such matters.
Anybody interested in reading more about the Japanese internment should pick up “Farewell to Manzanar” by Jeanne Wakatsuki. Its a short yet comprehensive look at her childhood spent at Manzanar. I highly recommend it.
by Sunny on June 18 2005, 11:36 pm #
Obasan by Joy Kogawa is a real good book about the Japanese internment in Canada based on the author’s experience.
by sh!ma on June 19 2005, 10:23 am #