Thinking in Terms...

Virginia is uniquely fortunate among her sister states.  Under our constitution, governors can only serve one term at a time.  To serve a second term, a governor must follow the example of Mills Godwin, taking four years off before running again.

True, some have argued that Virginians should abandon this wholesome rule, conforming the Commonwealth's constitution to the Federal model.  Perhaps it should be the other way 'round.  There's much to be said for limiting Presidents to a single term at a time.

 

Not every student of history would agree with my assessment, but as a long-time history teacher, I would argue that - over the entire course of American history - the only two presidents who could claim a truly successful second term were named Roosevelt.

Even the other presidents whom historians often deem outstanding - Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Reagan - seemed to meet with misfortune in their second terms.  

On the other hand, Lincoln - arguably our greatest president - accomplished great things in four years.  He had barely taken the oath for his second term when an assassin struck him down.

And James K. Polk - who refused to run for a second term - achieved almost his entire agenda in four remarkably industrious years, doubling the size of the country in the process.

One problem with the two-term rule - at least in modern times - is that presidents start running for re-election as soon as they take office.  Instead of striving, like Polk, to achieve an ambitious agenda in one term, the typical president focuses on building his popularity - postponing the real work until a second term which might never happen.

Another problem is this:  Hoping for two terms, men often seek the presidency without sufficient experience - or without a well-considered vision for the future.  In recent decades, both parties have run "Washington outsiders" who needed years of on-the-job training before they were truly ready for the job. 

Indeed, the last president who came into office ready was George H. W. Bush - a quarter century ago.

In theory, of course, a great leader might make powerful use of two consecutive terms - but over two centuries of experience teaches that the main function of a second term is to encourage a president to postpone demonstrating the sort of dynamic leadership that could have made his first term successful.

Which leads, inevitably, to this thought:  Perhaps, we should consider limiting future presidents to two non-consecutive terms, á la Grover Cleveland.

***

Besides pondering future reforms, the present constitutional arrangement will enter into the calculations of citizens foresighted enough to look beyond the present election cycle.

In 2008, for example, I dismayed my friends by voting for Senator John McCain. 

To be sure, I respected Senator McCain as a hero and a legislator with strong bipartisan credentials.  But on matters of public policy, I was more inclined to agree with Senator Obama.

Still, thinking strategically, I expected that the inexperienced Mr. Obama would need several years to learn to be President.  In the meanwhile, his failures of leadership would open the door to the election of an extreme conservative in 2012.

On the whole, I preferred to live with a President McCain - who would probably govern from the center - while hoping for a stronger progressive in 2016.

As it turned out, I was mostly right about Mr. Obama.  It took him almost three years to learn to act like a President - though once he did, he proved surprisingly tough and effective.

But I guessed wrong about the Republicans.  This year, they chose Mitt Romney, an instinctive moderate who has - despite saying all the "right" things - failed to inspire confidence in the Republican base.

Thus, in 2012, conservative Republicans - saddled with an uninspiring candidate - face roughly the same dilemma I did in 2008.

If they manage to elect Mr. Romney, they will have - well, really, who knows?  He might prove to be the conservative he now claims to be.  Or he might prove to be the 

Massachusetts moderate whose state health care initiative was the model for "Obamacare".

What's certain is this:  If Mr. Romney wins, he will seek a second term in 2016.  Which means many Republicans with far stronger conservative credentials will have to cool their heels until 2020.

Meanwhile, the Democrats would likely choose President Romney's 2016 challenger from among two tough, experienced, and popular liberals - Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.  If President Romney proves dithering - or insufficiently conservative - either of these Democrats would likely make short work of him.

So the Republican Right - the "tea-party" folks and the social conservatives - must ponder this:  Do they want to elect Romney in 2012 - if it means not having one of their own in office until 2020? 

Or should they tolerate President Obama for four  more years - and run a strong conservative in 2016?

Under the logic of the two-term rule, such considerations deserve serious thought.

Besides, demographics are destiny, and America's population growth is occurring mainly in groups that vote Democratic.  The Republican Right will be around for a long time, but they might only get one more chance to elect a president.

Will it be Mitt Romney?

Is that really what they want?

Presidential Leadership in Challenging Times

With four months to go in this, America's most expensive presidential campaign, it's still impossible to predict whether President Obama will withstand the determined challenge of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Come November 6, someone will win, and someone will head for the celebrity golf and lecture circuit.  But, as any student of history knows, the results will not necessarily be "historic".

Of course, every president makes history - in a sense.  But only some presidents seem to change the course of the nation's destiny. 

For several years now, the American people have been in a restless mood.  We want a new direction - a new vision - genuine change.  But which candidate, if either, offers the prospect of historic change?

From time to time in American history, a President - confronted with a particularly critical situation - has changed America's destiny by the way he managed that crisis.  These presidents resembled skilled whitewater canoeists, negotiating the powerful rapids of a fast-flowing river.  Three of them - Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt - are ranked among the all-time greats. 

Other highly-regarded presidents - including the first Adams, Jefferson, Truman, and Eisenhower - likewise distinguished themselves by making significant, but not fundamental, change by their skillful management of dangerous times.

A few presidents have possessed the skill, vision, and tenacity to change the nation's course despite the absence of a major crisis.  Teddy Roosevelt is probably the outstanding exemplar of this presidential type.  Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan also qualify - as does James K. Polk, a president finally beginning to get his scholarly due.

Other presidents have fared less well before the bar of history.  These have often been presidents who failed to appreciate the historical context in which they operated.  Some were simply inadequate - small men in a big job.  Antebellum presidents Taylor, Pierce, and Buchanan proved incapable of dealing with the "impending crisis" brought on by changing attitudes toward slavery and the growing power of sectionalism.

Likewise, Harding and Coolidge presided, rather than led, as the forces of history swept the nation toward the twin disasters of World War II and the Great Depression.

Other presidents have been wedded to personal ideals or formal ideologies which blinded them to reality.  Woodrow Wilson, whose first term was so promising, ended in failure because his ambitious vision of world peace ignored the contemporary realities of European politics.

Herbert Hoover, a brilliant administrator in peace and war, was hamstrung by a market ideology which rejected the need for bold government action in a time of unprecedented economic paralysis.

Jimmy Carter, idealistic and visionary, could not persuade his fellow citizens to address problems which then seemed far in the future.

It's possible to categorize presidents in many ways, but over the long-term, the judgment of history seems to come down to one thing:  The match between the leader and his times.

Some presidents have found themselves in situations which perfectly suited their personal strengths.  Lincoln - with limited administrative experience and only one term in Congress - might easily have failed in peacetime.  But his rare combination of stubbornness, strategic flexibility, single-minded focus and genius for communication - all traits of a veteran trial lawyer - were exactly those needed to win the Civil War.

Other presidents - often capable men - have found themselves perplexed by circumstances to which their gifts were not suited.  William Howard Taft, a capable administrator who later distinguished himself as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, lacked the personality and energy to follow the dazzling Teddy Roosevelt.  Taft became the only incumbent to finish third in his re-election bid.

The fit between a leader and his times should be among the key factors as Americans choose their next president.   At the same time, we must keep in mind how seldom we can foresee all the challenges which our next president will face.

It seems clear that the next president will have to deal with a painfully slow recovery, made worse by the continuing turbulence in the Euro Zone.  America's competitiveness, and especially the quality of our educational systems, will still be an issue.   And the looming questions of providing for the aging of our largest  generation - the  Baby Boomers - will no longer  be avoidable.

Other issues will come out of nowhere - like the four hijacked airliners which instantly transformed George W. Bush from an "education president" to a wartime commander-in-chief.

None of us possesses a crystal ball, but these three things seem to me clear:

First, by the end of this campaign, American voters - overwhelmed by the massive ad wars unleashed as a result of Citizens United - will demand new controls on campaign spending.  

Second, as a result of a demographic shift, the libertarian attitudes of younger voters will render social conservatism increasingly irrelevant.

Third, the winning candidate will be the one who can spell out, in relatively specific terms, a new vision for America.  Both parties have long built their strategies on a nostalgia for some  past era.  This year, that will not work.

If these three projections are correct, the Election of 2012 is Mr. Obama's to lose.

A Republican candidate simply cannot advocate limits on campaign spending - or question the Supreme Court decision which deemed corporations "persons" for this purpose.  A Democrat could - and in this election year - absolutely should.

A Republican candidate - particularly one who is suspect among social conservatives - cannot come out in favor of libertarian values.  A Democrat must be careful, but there is room for Mr. Obama to emphasize the importance of keeping government out of people's private lives.  The issue, well-handled, can only help him energize younger voters.

As for new vision, both candidates have plenty of room to paint a picture of the future toward which they would lead us.  Mr. Romney is hampered, to an extent, but the fearfulness of the poorly-educated part of the extreme Right.  But Mr. Obama has never shown much ability at envisioning a future which doesn't consist mainly of restoring the economy of the Clinton Era. 

And that simply isn't going to happen.

To my mind, the election will come down to this.  If Mr. Obama can manage to convey a compelling idea of a future America which makes sense to independent voters, I seriously doubt Mr. Romney can match him.

Americans are hungry for a new beginning - a new vision which offers hope and a plan.

The candidate who can offer this will be our next president.

If neither does, the way becomes even more clear for a third party in the years to come.

Why Speaking Truth is Good Politics

In Aaron Sorkin's brilliant, if uneven, new HBO series, "The Newsroom", a central theme involves the desperate need of our society to hear the truth.

Not the "absolute truth", of course - for no one can rationally claim to possess that - but the truth as we know it.  Truth analogous to what scientists talk about:  observable facts, treated with reasoning devoid (to the extent possible) of logical fallacies, leading to whatever hypothesis best explains the state of our knowledge thus far.

Such truths are conditional, of course.  Circumstances may change.  Additional information will certainly come in.  A brilliant mind might offer a new, insightful way of analyzing the known data. 

But a rational individual - or a rational nation - should base its decisions, to the extent possible, on the truth as we know it.  Not on ideology, or what we prefer to believe.  And certainly not on blind faith.

There are many examples of truths which Americans too seldom hear, such as:

• A refusal to pay taxes sufficient to cover the cost of present services - including debt service -   inevitably imposes costs on future generations.

• Continuing to operate schools which prepare our young people for the industrial economy of    yesterday, instead of preparing them to be agile, adaptable, self-reliant entrepreneurs, assures     less prosperity for them, and for the nation as a whole.

• Global climate change is real, and serious, and significantly influenced by human behavior.  It     could also be slowed, if not reversed, by changes  in human behavior.

Political discourse too seldom takes place in the context of such truths, because neither major party offers candidates willing to speak the truth. 

But perhaps there is a solution...

If a third party is to take its place in American politics, it could do worse than to embrace a commitment to telling the truth. 

Politics has always been something of a hostile environment for truth-tellers.  All too often, until the truth comes hammering at the gates of a civilized state - with the hordes of destruction hard on its heels - we decent folk tend to prefer the comfort of our delusions.  Those who tell the truth, before the public is ready to hear it, often sacrifice their public careers.  For every Churchill who finally achieves glory, a thousand will die in obscurity, their names barely registered in even the thickest historical tomes.

Still, in a democratic republic - or any society determined to survive - the sacrifice is essential.  And a third party, with no immediate prospect of power, is ideally placed to make such a sacrifice.  Indeed, there are purely practical, baldly political advantages to speaking out on subjects which major parties fear to address.

For one thing, many citizens admire courage.  It should not be forgotten that not a few citizens have shown courage in their own lives - and they respect it.  Many others wish they could show more courage, and will look upon a party which does so as showing leadership.

As for those who are skeptical about our political system - a goodly number - a candidate or party willing to speak plainly will come across as a refreshing alternative to the usual choice between violent diatribes and timid political correctness.

Of course, there will also be people who share a belief in an unpopular or inconvenient truth.  The American people are not nearly as ignorant or stupid as the media, political scientists, and major parties would have us believe.  Given a choice between two fallacious world-views, most citizens opt for the lesser of evils.  But given a chance to vote for a stubborn little party which tells the truth and won't go away, there's a fair chance many would begin to vote for candor.

Most important, a party which speaks the truth can begin to change the terms of the political debate in this country - which is the whole point of starting a political party, or any political movement, to begin with.  The public is increasingly suspicious of both major parties.  There's an opening for a party voters can actually trust.

Of course, there's always the "belling the cat" problem.  A third party may choose to embrace truth as a principle, but it can only bring that message to the public by running candidates.  And these candidates, as individuals, will bear the greatest part of the burden of saying unpopular things to voters accustomed to pandering platitudes.

To be sure, a third party can make itself attractive to people with  political experience and know-how.  It might even draw in a few veterans of public office willing to run again with little prospect of winning.

But there must be a pay-off.  And a third party - especially one dedicated to speaking truth - must act with just as much strategic calculation as a major party concerned only with winning the next election.

For such a party, two types  of candidates would seem to be ideal:  Veteran candidates who have held office - and left office - and who know that losing an election, or several, will not kill them.  And young candidates willing to learn the ropes in campaigns  they will not win - in preparation for winning future campaigns when public  opinion has come around to their views.

For the Commonwealth Party, I would recommend a policy of seeking candidates of these two types.  Further, I would commend seeking candidates with the ability to speak the truth in the way a great teacher would:  Calmly, rationally, and firmly - without anger or hysteria. 

The model might well be a fictional character from much farther back than Mr. Sorkin's latest drama - Atticus Finch, the heroic lawyer and father of To Kill a Mockingbird.

But the key is to make truth telling part of the DNA of the new party.  Begin with honesty.  Begin with confidence that - if a majority of voters are not yet willing to hear the truth, there is minority for whom an honest party, and honest candidates, will come as an unlooked-for blessing.

Among such people, you can begin building your party.

A Healthy Development

Thursday morning, after CNN and Fox briefly muddied the waters, Americans learned that the Supreme Court had upheld the Affordable Care Act, including its "individual mandate".  Chief Justice John Roberts had pulled together enough votes to sustain nearly all of the health care law.

And everyone - everyone  - had something to say about it.

But most were grasping for words.  The Court sustained the law - not under the Commerce Clause - but on the much narrower basis of Congress' tax power.

So - where does that  leave us?

Opponents of the law are girding their loins for a full-blown Armageddon - starting with Eric Cantor's decision to vote on a repeal bill in the House in mid-July.

This vote will almost certainly pass in the Republican House - and be DOA in the Democratic Senate.

And here's where I differ from the punditi:  I'm guessing that will be that.

You see, in American political history, there's a long tradition of fighting hard - even dirty - right up to the moment when somebody wins.  And then, suddenly, we just stop.

It happened with the Constitution.  Many Americans regarded the proposed Constitution as giving far too much power to a distant, central government.  At Virginia's ratification convention, for example, Patrick Henry thundered against the plan.  In other states, other prominent Anti-Federalists did the same.

But Virginia - and ten other states - ratified; Congressmen were elected; and George Washington was chosen as our first President.

And, as Washington made his way to New York to be sworn in, Americans flocked to cheer him.  Not just Federalists - but Anti-Federalists as well.  The battle had been fought.  Someone had won.  Time to move on.

It's happened again and again.  When I was a kid, Chesterfield County's schools were desegregated.  Segregationists howled that the world was coming to an end.  But at Thomas Dale High School, a handful of black students showed up - and our principal, the faculty, and most of the students did their best to make it work.

Around that time, bitter battles were being fought in Congress over the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.  But when they passed, Congress went back to passing routine laws, holding hearings, and wasting money - as Congresses have done since 1789.

Twelve years ago, officials in Florida made a mess of counting the votes for President.  The Supreme Court ultimately got involved.  The case of Bush v. Gore was - in the judgment of millions - a travesty.  But no one started a revolution.  The  Court had ruled.  We  had a President.  Life went on.

It would be easy enough to point to the big exception in our national history - the Civil War.  But, in general, Americans' attitude toward important political decisions has been much like our attitude toward major sporting events.  We cheer our lungs out, abuse the officials, and occasionally use language we didn't learn from our mothers. 

And when the game ends, we have a beer - with supporters of both teams.

So here's how  I see it.

Two years ago, Congress passed the ACA.  President Obama signed it.  Because of its length and complexity, few Americans fully understood it - so they took predictable positions.

Obama fans, instinctive liberals, and those who stood to benefit from the law tended to embrace it.  Those who loathe Mr. Obama, hard-core Republicans, and those who get their opinions from AM radio took the other side.

Those who want a single, national health care system were torn between dismay at the ACA's reliance on private insurance - and dismay at the possibility that its opponents would repeal it and go back to the untenable mess it replaced.

And Americans who actually understand the Constitution, in historical context, were horrified, since we realized that the individual mandate - resting on the Commerce Clause - represented a radical extension of Federal power, at the expense of individual  liberty.

Obviously, the whole business would  come before the Supreme Court - which is why no one, on either side, was prepared to give up the struggle.  When the President signed the ACA into law, it  was halftime - not the end of the game.  No one was in the mood for handshakes and post-game revelry.

Fortunately, Chief Justice Roberts managed to do the right thing, in exactly the right way.  The ACA  survives.  And the Constitution survives.

Game over.  Time to move on.

For a little while, Republicans will test the viability of health care as an issue for November.  I'm betting they won't waste much time on this strategy.  Indeed, Mitt Romney seems already to be shying away from an issue which brings into sharp focus his lack of consistency.

As a practical matter, the  ACA  will be with us for a long time.  Eric Cantor's "repeal" will be pure theatre.

For the Republicans to repeal the ACA after November, they must first hold the House  - which is by no means guaranteed. 

They must capture the Senate - by a 60-40 majority, which is nearly impossible.  (Yes, there is an argument that the GOP could finagle a vote by a simple majority, but they don't have a friend in the chair this time.)

They must elect Mitt Romney.

And they must pray that President Romney will prove to be a conservative - rather than the Massachusetts moderate who worked so hard to enact a state health law remarkably like the ACA.

A tall order, in a country so closely divided.

To be sure, passionate conservatives and highly-partisan Republicans will want to fight on through November, and beyond.

But American elections are won in the center - among moderate voters who dislike both parties.  And for those Americans, the Supreme Court's decision has very likely marked the end of the story.

If Republicans make health care a central issue this fall, they will lose, and lose badly.  

Knowing that, their strategists will soon shift focus to issues that give them a better chance of 

winning.

And in the next two years - as various features of the ACA come into effect - the law will become part of the fabric of most Americans' lives, budgets, and long-range financial plans.

Then, it will really be "Game over".