It seems good that after two terms in office, the president leaves the office for one term. But I do not consider good not to allow that person to run for president ever again. American citizens should be given the opportunity to choose between Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama.
It's not a good idea!
Trump has already put American democracy in enough trouble.
I personally very much like Obama and I would like to see him turn into Putin.
Basically there is very good reason to limit presidential legacy to two terms, as it has been established in the U.S. by the 22nd amendment not earlier than 1947 (or, 1951, respectively when ratified by the required number of States), after Roosevelt had won a third and fourth term (while breaking with the tradition or informal institution of two terms that was established by George Washington).
One main reason is the concern that unlimited office might lead to nondemocratic practices in office, given that checks and balances can be circumvented. Another reason might be the question of succession that could change into some kind of inheritance over time, if the unlimited leader announces the favoured successor. A third reason is the fear of a little homogeneous elite governing for longer times and establishing a kind of oligarchy. So, basically, limiting terms is another kind of checks and balances that was implemented. And it forces political parties to recruit new personell that it able to run for office and to be competitive over time.
The practice in Putin's Russia provides empirical evidence on how this could develop in a basically undemocratic way.
Maybe there are more reasons for justifying this limitation you could think about
Rolf, you gave a nice explanation, but there are some "exceptions" ...
"... The practice in Putin's Russia provides empirical evidence on how this could develop in a basically undemocratic way."
Perhaps, but British and German politicians are considered national heroes when they are elected four consecutive times (e.g. Merkel).
Incidentally, I have not been impressed by "liberal democracy". I lived 36 years in "state socialism" (communism), and life was better for common people than it is now. It seems that liberal democracy is good primarily for business people, politicians and criminals. Excuse me for this heretic remark.
Mr. Obama is constitutionally prohibited from running for a third term. This amendment to the Constitution was added following the death of Franklin Roosevelt who was elected four times, though he died early in his fourth term.
Christian, if you say so, it is probably so, because you know the situation in Germany better. I put this question simply because Mr. Trump tried (rather successfully) to undo all Mr. Obama had done. So, it would be interesting and fair perhaps that the two presidents run against each other. Maybe this would not be good, but it would be interesting.
"I hope that the Democrats are able to come up with promising candidates for the next election."
I am afraid they will not. Some are too old, and the most beautiful lady abandoned the competition a couple of days ago.
Given the facts that Mr. Obama wasn't impeached while in office, and no record of any misdemeanor, and giving credence to the magnitude of his administration, he should be allowed to run again if he indicates his interest in American selections....
"Do you know which US administration allowed and why---to transfer billions stolen from the Venezuelan oil industry by the chavismo plague---to the international financial system?"
No, I do not. I do not deal with such issues. I do not even vote. But those great democrats who destroyed Iraq (under obviously false accusations) were proudly elected again. By their beloved citizens. So, the fact that you exclude some rare individuals from further elections does not change anything.
I do not believe one's age or physical appearance should be determining factors of a candidate's abilities.
While the current US political system put in place and maintained by elected representatives keeps the two-term limit in place, perhaps some speculation across time could be interesting for the purposes of this question. There is a website that show's the current US president's poll numbers compared to those of past presidents at the same point in their terms: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/. While this is not an indication of how former US presidents are viewed today, another poll compares current perceptions of Obama vs. those of Trump: https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_121019/
Justin Patrick
"I do not believe one's age or physical appearance should be determining factors of a candidate's abilities."
I did not intend it quite seriously, but physical appearance matters.
"The impeachment hearings over the past month have not moved the reelection needle in either direction,” said Patrick Murray ...
I claim that people believe what they wish to believe as long as they can believe it. So, it is normal that supporters of Mr. Trump will not cease to support him for the reason that his opponents criticize (impeach) him.
Incidentally, I have seen a couple of beautiful female souls on that web page; so, there is hope for Democrats.
I was writing normatively. Empirically, people likely take age and physical appearance into consideration, but I believe that they should not place so much emphasis on them. From studying student governments, I have become aware that ageism is a form of discrimination that needs to be overcome in contemporary societies, since it leads to labeling people as lesser than others without considering their abilities or ideas. Instead, we should look to the candidates' policy proposals and actions.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Kinesiology
- Running