Re-thinking the 22nd amendment

I think presidents should have one seven-year term and not be eligible for reelection. Here’s why. Presidents are cautious to make bold moves in the first terms due to voter backlash and if and when they win a second term oftentimes they run the clock working on their foreign policy legacy, which oftentimes, has a higher degree of success due to the lack of robust input needed from Capitol Hill.
Nixon did it with China in his second term, along with Reagan with Russia, Clinton with the Middle East process and Bush (43) with Iraq and Africa.

The history books have long been written on the path for presidential success and it all hinges on the ability of a president using his political capitol when working with Congress. That’s almost always when a new president gets elected and the political class widely interprets his win as a mandate to put his stamp on the direction of our government. But, historically, that only lasts for about two years and then like a light switch, the president transitions to campaign mode for his own reelection with the Congress doing the same. It also forces the president to always think about the political fallout of his decisions, which of course, every president does and not by the full merits of the policy and it’s impact on the American people.

Think about it: what if you could make a decision clear of any pretense and rule based solely on the facts and not be influenced by outside forces? Wouldn’t that be liberating? For you and also for the leader of the free world and it’s only superpower? I think if you were to ask every single living former president if they could choose between two 4-year terms or 1 seven-year tear, free from any political payback or pushback, I think we know which one they would choose.
Now that we live in the age of 30-second sound bites, constant social media campaigning and an array of media outlets clamoring for time, money and attention, I think we, as a country, should allow our president the ability to do the job and not be worried about campaigning.
Yes, I am aware that there is a constitutional amendment that expressly allows a president to serve two terms. The 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the states in 1951. This was ratified after the country recoiled after Franklin Roosevelt went before the electorate an unprecedented four times. I know that changing the Constitution is very hard politically and legislatively (as it should be) but I do think this is something worth considering for the benefit of all of us.
Think of the political burden that would be lifted from the president’s shoulders and think about how we would view the office of the presidency differently.
Would we cut the president more slack knowing that he’s making a decision based on policy and not politics? Would we scrutinize him more knowing that’s its all about policy and not politics?
If the answer to both of these questions is “yes,” then it might be a good idea for the American people to take another look at how we select our future presidents. Just a thought.

Follow Robert Traynham on Twitter @roberttraynham.

https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/re-thinking-the-nd-amendment/article_6855b4d5-eb94-51d7-b84b-4e384b335f2f.html