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?