The 22nd Amendment strikes back

I have no idea if the report out of Israel that President Bush wants to attack Iran before leaving office is true (the White House denies it), but the fact that we're debating it should highlight the problem with the 22nd Amendment, which removes democratic accountability from second-term presidents. President Bush is deeply unpopular, but he has no personal incentive to adjust his policies to public opinion. If he had the option to run again, things might look very different right now. It's certainly hard to imagine that he would even contemplate starting another war in the Middle East.

Update 5/22 9:16 AM: Of course, as readers point out via email and in comments, Bush's unpopularity is so massive at this point that he might not not run again even if he had the option to do so, which is true. However, the second-to-last sentence above is my way of suggesting that Bush's behavior throughout his second term probably would have been different if he had the option to run again (politicians don't usually leave office voluntarily). As such, he probably wouldn't be so unpopular now and thus would be at least a marginally viable candidate for a third term.

Comments

[David]

Interesting point. OTOH absent a 22nd Amendment Bush might not be running for a 3rd term, because he's so unpopular.

There could be an analogy with Truman in 1952. He had the legal right to serve another term, but chose not to run. Perhpas one reason was that he was unpopular at that time. Like Bush, he had a nagging war that the country was sick and tired of.

[Tulsa Atty]

That's funny, as I've always worried about the other extreme: the politician who won't make hard decisions or implement unpopular-but-necessary policies because he/she just thinks about getting re-elected.

I'd even given thought to whether we'd be better off having our POTUS serve a single six year term.

[Kyle]

The prospect of a future tenure gives the president the leverage to get things done. I believe that if the president was able to run for more terms, then they would make decisions more in favor of the american public. take for example FDR. He was a strong executive. It takes a strong executive to be philisophical and practical. plus the 22nd amendemnt undermines the true meaning of democracy, or even the republic; which we theoretically are government wise.