Category: Politics

What Would Ronnie Think?

On October 21, 2024

Thoughts on Ronald Reagan and the Current State of the Republican Party

I think Ronald Reagan may have been the best president of the modern era. I know that will make my liberal friends cringe. Additionally, I have recently gained new respect for Clinton and Obama, and I know that will likewise make my conservative friends cringe. I’ve always considered myself to be more conservative than liberal. But I just cannot support the current direction of the Republican Party and now consider myself to be a “Recovering Republican”. I didn’t leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me. And I wonder “What would Ronnie think?”

Speculating on what Ronald Reagan might think of the modern Republican Party is risky and involves consideration of his political philosophy, policies, and the values he championed during his presidency from 1981 to 1989.

Key Points of Reagan’s Ideology:

Conservatism: Reagan was a proponent of traditional conservative values, emphasizing limited government, individual liberties, free markets, and a strong national defense. He likely would have been concerned about the confrontational form of conservativism espoused by many contemporary Republicans.
Optimism: He often conveyed a sense of optimism about America’s future, believing in the ability of the American people to solve their problems. He would have been concerned about current rhetoric designed to pit Americans against one another.
Bipartisanship: Reagan worked with Democrats on significant legislation, showcasing a willingness to compromise for the greater good. President Reagan and Tip O’Neill, Speaker of the House, believed that partisanship ended after 6:00 PM and should never be a barrier to friendship.
Focus on Issues: His presidency was marked by a focus on economic issues, such as tax cuts, deregulation, and a strong anti-communist foreign policy. He likely would have been concerned by the Republican Party’s current often favorable response to the totalitarian governments in both Russia and China.

Speculation on His Views of Today’s GOP:

Populism vs. Traditional Conservatism: Reagan might be concerned about the rise of populism within the party, which sometimes shifts focus away from traditional conservative principles. He valued ideological coherence over personality-driven politics.
Divisive Rhetoric: The modern Republican Party has seen an increase in divisive and confrontational rhetoric. Reagan was known for his ability to unite people and might disapprove of the factionalism that can alienate moderate Republicans and independents.
Economic Policies: Reagan’s foundational economic principles might resonate with today’s emphasis on tax cuts and deregulation. However, he also expressed concern over increasing national debt and the impact of tax cuts without corresponding spending reductions. He was a strong proponent of free trade and believed that it had benefitted the US economy by opening markets and encouraging competition and he played a significant role in establishing trade agreements that laid the basis for the North American Free Trade Act. In contrast, today’s Republican Party is more concerned with protectionist policies and tariffs and creating trade barriers which they believe will somehow benefit the country as a whole.
Social Issues: Reagan had a more moderate stance on certain social issues than some factions of today’s GOP. He might find the current approach to issues like immigration and LGBTQ+ rights more contentious than his more inclusive positions. He was slow to respond to the AIDS crisis but was not as overtly hostile to the issues as the current GOP. Reagan advocated a restriction of federal funding for abortions but did not back a total ban on abortions.
Foreign Policy: Given his strong anti-communist stance and emphasis on diplomacy, Reagan may critique some of the modern party’s more isolationist tendencies. He might also be concerned about the current positive approach towards totalitarian regimes.
Immigration: Reagan had a different approach to immigration than the current GOP. He backed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which provided emergency amnesty for approximately 3,000,000 undocumented immigrants. Many of today’s Republicans would label Reagan’s amnesty program as a failure and certainly not one that they would be willing to repeat. Reagan’s policies were aimed at addressing the historic realities of immigration and included provisions for legalization which is currently opposed by most Republicans.

In summary, while Reagan might appreciate certain aspects of the modern Republican Party, such as a commitment to conservative economic principles, he would likely be critical of the divisive politics, populism, and the lack of bipartisan cooperation that he valued. Reagan’s views might resonate with traditional conservatives who still value free market principles. Likely though, they would face pushback from factions within the party that prioritize the nationalist policies. Many Republicans today see Reagan’s approach as outdated or incompatible with their current priorities which emphasize immediate economic protection over long term global engagement. This assessment is speculative, of course, and based on my interpretation of his beliefs and leadership style.

For a deeper dive into Reagan’s legacy, consider reading more from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation (www.reaganfoundation.org)

What Would George Washington and Thomas Jefferson Think About Our Current Political Climate?

By John Turley

On October 16, 2024

In Commentary, History, Politics

In considering what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson might think of today’s political situation, it’s tempting to view their perspectives through the lens of nostalgia, believing that the founders had an idealistic vision that, if followed, would have prevented many modern problems. It’s impossible of course to know what they may have thought about our current environment. Certainly, such things as a 24-hour news cycle on cable television and social media would have been beyond their comprehension. While both men lived in a vastly different era, their writings and philosophies give us a sense of how they might respond to the polarization and tensions we witness today.

George Washington: A Warning Against Partisanship

George Washington was deeply concerned about the rise of factions in the United States. (Political parties as such were unknown at the beginning of our republic.) In his famous Farewell Address in 1796, he warned that factions could lead to division and weaken the unity of the country. Washington was worried that faction (party) loyalty would surpass loyalty to the nation, creating conflict between groups and impairing the ability of government to function for the common good. He feared that excessive partisanship would “distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration,” leaving the nation vulnerable to foreign influence and internal discord.

If Washington could observe today’s political environment, he likely would be saddened by the partisanship which dominates political discourse. The gridlock, belligerent rhetoric, and divisiveness we experience today demonstrate the appropriateness of his concern. Washington would likely advocate for a return to greater civility, urging Americans to focus on the common good and to set aside factionalism for the sake of national unity. While political parties have become integral to our system, Washington would likely still press for cooperation, mutual respect, and compromise among all groups.

Thomas Jefferson: Liberty, Democracy, and the People’s Role

Thomas Jefferson, while more supportive of political parties than Washington, had his own complex views about governance. Jefferson believed in the power of the people to govern themselves and was a passionate advocate for liberty, democracy, and decentralization. He distrusted concentrated power, whether in government, or economic institutions, and feared that it could lead to tyranny. Jefferson was famously a champion of agrarianism and believed that widespread participation in the democratic process was the best defense against corruption and the loss of liberty.

Jefferson, while a proponent of states’ rights and individual liberties, might view polarization as a threat to democratic ideals if it stifles dialogue and compromise. He believed in the potential for free men to govern wisely, but would caution against the erosion of civil discourse that might follow the rise of extreme factionalism

Faced with the highly charged political debates of today, Jefferson would likely express concern over the increasing centralization of power in government, banks, and large corporations. He would, without doubt, be troubled by the outsized influence of money in politics.

Jefferson was also a firm believer in education as a cornerstone of democracy; he would stress the importance of an informed electorate, particularly in an age where misinformation can spread rapidly.

However, Jefferson was no stranger to political conflict, having played a central role in the fiercely partisan battles of his time. He understood the value of vigorous debate but would probably urge that such debate remain focused on the core democratic principles of liberty, justice, and equality rather than devolving into personal attacks.

Media and Civil Discourse

Of course, it is impossible to know what Washington and Jefferson would think about the current role of media, particularly social media which would be beyond anything in their experience. Washington felt strongly aggrieved by the attacks upon him in the newspapers of the time. He felt unfair attacks would undermine national unity. Jefferson, on the other hand, was a strong proponent of freedom of the press. He was also very adept at the use of newspapers to accomplish political means.

However, it is likely that both would caution against the dangers of misinformation and partisan bias to distort public perception. Most likely both would emphasize the need for a responsible press that distinguishes between fact and opinion and supports a healthy democracy. Both would be opposed to using false or misleading statements to influence the public.

Unity and Civic Responsibility

Despite their differences, both Washington and Jefferson would likely agree on one thing: the importance of unity and civic responsibility. They envisioned a country where citizens were deeply involved in a participatory government, contributing not just with votes but with informed, constructive dialogue. Washington would call for a spirit of national unity above party lines, while Jefferson would insist that the preservation of liberty relies on active and informed participation from the public.

Both founders would encourage a healthier, more cooperative political environment, one where differences are respected and not allowed to fracture the country. They would likely see today’s polarization as a threat to the very ideals they fought to establish, and both would urge Americans to remember their shared values.

Conclusion

In short, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, while men of their own time, had insights that are still relevant today. Neither man could have predicted the exact nature of modern politics, but their wisdom offers enduring guidance: political disagreements must not undermine the unity, liberty, and civic responsibility that are the foundation of the American experiment. We owe it to them not to lose the promise of the American Revolution.

The Pot Predicament

By John Turley

On September 13, 2024

In Commentary, Politics

Recently, the Charleston City Council passed a bill to reduce the penalties for the possession of marijuana for personal use. This started me thinking about marijuana and its long intertwining with my generation. I first became aware of marijuana in my early teenage years, more than sixty years ago. At that time, possession of marijuana for personal use was a crime, as it still is in much of the country now, and it remains a federal crime. Soon after I became conscious of the whole thing, marijuana was incorporated into President Nixon’s war on drugs.

This is a war which sadly we continue to lose. This doesn’t stop us from pouring resources into a part of that war that doesn’t need to be fought. For as long as I can remember, we have continued to prosecute and imprison people who possess marijuana for their own use. I’m not going to discuss possession of marijuana for distribution, that’s a separate problem, one I think will take care of itself if we properly address marijuana for personal use.

Laws against personal use of marijuana remind me much of the failed experiment of prohibition. If people want something enough, they will find it regardless of what the law says. Most of the people imprisoned for personal possession of marijuana represented little or no threat to society as a whole and no one benefited from their imprisonment.

I know the arguments for and against. The health arguments on the pro side say it relieves glaucoma, chronic pain and anxiety. On the con side, there are arguments saying that it is addictive, it can cause cognitive delay and accelerate the development of psychosis. There have been many arguments surrounding marijuana as a gateway drug. I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that restricting personal use of marijuana makes any difference in use of other drugs. The only exception may be those cases where people become hooked on fentanyl or heroin that has been used to lace their marijuana.

My argument against laws criminalizing personal use is that they don’t work. We have spent millions, perhaps billions, of dollars and hundreds of thousands of law enforcement hours to enforce laws that in the long run have no real benefit.

I think it would make better sense to legalize marijuana for personal use. That way, like the alcohol and tobacco industries, it can be regulated with inspections and oversight activities. Customers would know it had not been contaminated with other dangerous drugs. It could also be taxed and distributed through businesses that would benefit from legitimate sale. The tax revenue could be used to fund drug treatment plans for our serious opioid crisis. That is the one war on drugs that we must win but in which we continue to fall further behind. Redirecting funds from marijuana enforcement to opioid treatment and enforcement will help save lives.

If personal use of marijuana is legalized, criminal distribution will rapidly fall away as there will be no profit. The street corner pot dealer will become a historical footnote, much like the prohibition era bootlegger.

I know some of you are thinking I must be an old hippie sitting around my living room smoking a joint and listening to the Grateful Dead. Even though I came of age in the Age of Aquarius, I’ve never tried marijuana and have no plans to do so whether it’s legalized or not. I have no objection to it, it’s just that as a younger man I preferred beer, as I got older, I migrated to wine and martinis, and now I’m too old to change.

The bottom line is this: we live in an age of limited resources, and we need to decide how we are going to utilize those resources. I would like to see us take those financial and human resources and utilize them to address the opioid and methamphetamine crises. We are currently wasting too many of these precious resources trying to enforce unnecessary and ultimately unenforceable laws against personal possession and use of marijuana. If we legalize personal possession, we will reduce crime and all but eliminate the illegal trafficking in marijuana.

That is my grumpy opinion.

A Book Report

By John Turley

On September 8, 2024

In Commentary, History, Politics

On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From The Twentieth Century

Timothy Snyder

I don’t believe I have written a book report since I was a freshman in college. This is a small book that I believe is well worth your time to read. I mean small book quite literally. It’s about 4 1/2 inches by 6 1/2 inches and only about 126 pages of fairly wide spaced text. You can read the entire book in an afternoon and still have time left over. The book is also available as an audiobook, and it’s combined with Twenty New Lessons From Russia’s War On Ukraine. I got the audio book and listened to it as well. That will take about eight hours to complete.

I’m calling this a book report rather than a book review because I want to tell you what’s in the book rather than what I think about it so that you can form your own opinion. First, I’ll give you an overall impression. It’s thought provoking and raises issues of concern to us today. You may not agree with it. I don’t agree with everything that he said. I found some of his 20 lessons to be redundant because I thought he was stretching to get 20 lessons for the 20th century. I also found one or two of them to be painfully obvious. What follows is just a summary of the book. Read it and e-mail me or call me if you’d like to discuss it. I will send the book to the first person who asks for it, but only if you promise to pass it on when you’re finished.

Doctor Snyder is a professor of history at Yale University. He specializes in Central and Eastern Europe and has spent considerable time in Ukraine. He’s the author of 15 books and reads five European languages and can converse in ten.

Preface

The book begins with a preface in which Doctor Snyder establishes the importance of historical awareness. He describes the failure of some 20th century European democracies and their descent into authoritarian rule. He uses these examples to illustrate how democracy cannot be taken for granted. He makes the argument that democracy is fragile and must be defended. He further argues that even in the United States, the continuation of our democracy is not a given and we must fight for freedom and maintain constant vigilance over our democratic processes.

Each of his twenty lessons is contained in a separate chapter, varying from a few pages to a single sentence.

The Twenty Lessons

Do Not Obey In Advance: Many authoritarian regimes have achieved their power from the people’s willingness to conform without being forced. Do not comply with unjust policies that are not being actively enforced.
Defend Institutions: Democratic institutions such as courts, the press, and unions are an important part of a free society. We must support and defend them against attacks and subversion.
Beware The One-Party State: A multiparty system is crucial for the survival of liberty. The rise of a one-party system often precedes the decline of democratic government.
Take Responsibility For The Face Of The World: The use of symbols in public spaces matters. Authoritarian regimes can shape public perceptions by co-opting national symbols and using them to create division rather than unity. Be vigilant for and challenge symbols of hate and remove these symbols from our public spaces.
Remember Professional Ethics: Professionals, especially those in law, medicine, education and government service must uphold ethical standards, even when pressured to conform to the aims of authoritarian regimes. Their integrity is vital for maintaining democracy.
Be Wary of Paramilitaries: Resist the rise of unofficial armed groups that support authoritarian figures. Such groups may eventually take the place of the legally constituted police and military services. “When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching with torches and pictures of a leader, the end is nigh. When the pro-leader paramilitary and official police and military intermingle, the end has come.”
Be Reflective If You Must Be Armed: If you are part of law enforcement or the military, refuse to participate in unjust actions or repressions of the population. Ensure that those who bear arms do so with a deep sense of responsibility and ethics and a great regard for the value of democracy.
Stand Out: Authoritarian regimes thrive on compliance. Demonstrate opposition publicly and show visible descent and encourage others to show resistance whenever possible.
Be Kind To Our Language: Be precise in your use of language and avoid repeating the phrases made popular by authoritarian leaders. Independent thinking is facilitated by the careful use of language. Manipulation of language is a powerful tool for the control of the population.
Believe In Truth: Truth is the linchpin of justice and democracy. Uphold and defend objective truths. Reject the false narratives or “big lies” spread by authoritarian regimes. Make every attempt to shed light on their falsehoods regardless of how often or loudly they proclaim them.
Investigate: Seek out reliable sources of information. Support independent journalism. Identify, evaluate and encourage trusted sources. Do not accept any claims by the authoritarian regime without your personal verification. Remember critical thinking is important to resisting manipulation.
Make Eye Contact and Small Talk: Build personal connections within the community to foster solidarity and resilience. Visible civic involvement demonstrates unity and a commitment to democratic principles.
Practice Corporal Politics: Participate in protests, marches, and public events. Physically demonstrating support and civic engagement shows a strong commitment to democratic principles.
Establish A Private Life: Protecting your privacy from surveillance is essential. Authoritarian regimes often invade personal spaces to control and manipulate individuals.
Contribute To Good Causes: Support organizations and causes that defend democracy and human rights. Both financial and moral support will strengthen resistance.
Learn From Peers In Other Countries: Understand how some nations have succumbed to authoritarianism while other nations have resisted it. Learn from their experiences and strategies.
Listen for Dangerous Words: Be alert to the use of language that demonizes opponents or glorifies violence. Such rhetoric often precedes more severe actions against targeted groups. Be sensitive to efforts to convert the population to harmful ideologies through repeated derogatory speech.
Be Calm When The Unthinkable Arrives: Stay composed in moments of crisis and resist the urge to act impulsively. Authoritarian leaders often attempt to exploit chaos to seize power. Be alert for such attempts and be ready to counter them.
Be A Patriot: True patriotism involves defending democratic values and principles, not blind loyalty to a leader or party. Waving flags and shouting slogans is not patriotism. Defending democracy is the true mark of a patriot.
Be As Courageous As You Can: “If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny.” (That is the total of this lesson; perhaps the most important one of all.)

Epilogue

The book concludes with an epilogue entitled History and Liberty. In the epilogue Doctor Snyder discusses his theories of the Politics of Inevitability and the Politics of Eternity.

The Politics of Inevitability is the belief that history naturally progresses in a linear forward direction typically towards a better future. It assumes that liberal democracy and capitalism will inevitably spread across the world leading to a more prosperous and freer global system. Human forces are seen as predictable and human activity is often downplayed. People who live under the politics of inevitability tend to believe that the current state of affairs will persist because it represents the end point of political and economic evolution.

The Politics of Eternity, on the other hand, rejects the linear progression of history and emphasizes a cyclical view. It supposes that nations are perpetually threatened by external forces. It glorifies a supposed golden age of the past that is idealized and mythologized. It views current politics as a struggle to return to that idealized past.

I found his discussions to be more theoretical than practical. I can see aspects of both in most current societies. I invite you to please read this and I would love to discuss it. I may be missing something in his presentation of inevitability and eternity.

In Conclusion

If you are concerned about the survival of democracy, read this book.

More Than Just Fake News: The Pernicious Effect Of Modern Propaganda

By John Turley

On July 24, 2024

In Commentary, History, Politics

Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves. Eric Hoffer

What is propaganda?

Propaganda! The very word conjures up images of sinister people involved in nefarious activities meant to delude the innocent. But this has not always been the case. Propaganda has, through much of history, been view as information, though frequently of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Propaganda has always involved exaggeration and omission in order to achieve a specific goal. It was intended to shape beliefs and attitudes without actually lying to the listeners. At its core, there was a basis of truth.

We generally think of propaganda as the domain of governments. But, in its broadest definition, advertising might be considered as propaganda. It’s intended to create the impression that specific products contribute real advantage to your life. Drinking a specific beer will make you have a better time. Driving a certain car will show that you are more environmentally concerned. Wearing specific clothes will make you more popular.

It wasn’t until the 20th century that the incorporation of falsehoods, deception, and other activities intended to create a totally false impression and to promulgate untruths became the mainstay of propaganda.

Phillip Taylor in his book “Munitions of the Mind” presents an excellent history of propaganda from its origins in the early years of civilization through its rapid evolution in the 20th century, to its infiltration of all aspects of society in the 21st century.

Propaganda began as early as ancient Mesopotamia when the boastings of kings were inscribed on stone monuments. It continued, principally as a way of monarchs justifying their rule up through the 19th century.

The earliest use of the term propaganda was in the early 17th century when the Catholic Church, wishing to spread Catholic doctrine, support the faithful and counter the protestant reformation, established the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide).

World War I saw the beginnings of the disconnection of propaganda and truth. Both sides in that war created knowingly false narratives to bolster civilian morale and increase the fighting spirit of their soldiers. World War II took this process to a whole new level as false propaganda was used to justify mass murder and enslavement of an entire continent. In the 21st century propaganda techniques have been raised to a new level of technical sophistication. Social media, artificial intelligence and modern psychological techniques can create images, sounds and documents completely unrelated to reality but almost impossible for the average person to recognize as false.

Elements of propaganda.

One of the classic elements of propaganda is repetition, the more a statement is repeated the more likely people are to believe it. There is a concept called “illusory truth effect” where the more you hear a statement, the more it feels true.

In past centuries, reference was made to respected people in authority to give credence to statements. Over the years, this has evolved into celebrity endorsements and continues to expand with the recent emergence of instant celebrities in the form of social media influencers.

Emotional appeals have always been a significant part of propaganda, emotions being more easily manipulated than facts. The audience is encouraged to react rather than think.

Simplification is also a central tenant of propaganda; complex ideas are reduced to simple slogans that can be repeated over and over again. Slogans that are catchy and clever will encourage people to repeat them without considering their true meaning.

The repeated use of slogans contributes to the bandwagon effect, a critical propaganda technique for creating the impression of widespread acceptance. The more a person believes everyone else supports the program, the more likely they will be to support it without detailed personal analysis.

Evolving propaganda.

In the early years of the 20th century, propaganda began to take a more malicious path. It began to lose a grounding in truth, except where necessary to sell the lie. As propaganda evolved through the first few decades of the 20th century it became a specialized and highly effective weapon of statecraft.

It’s important to recognize that the ultimate goal of propaganda is not merely manipulating opinions and beliefs. It is a tool for obtaining and using political power.

The following quote, which I will leave unattributed, underlies the objective of propaganda from the mid-20th century on.

“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. The great mass of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. If you tell a lie that is big enough and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

Propaganda in Action

A propaganda program that is designed to achieve political goals has several key elements.

The Target

The first step is to decide on the target population. These are the people you wish to cultivate as supporters and whom you wish to manipulate into specific actions. It’s important to understand what they consider to be their critical concerns. Whether you share those concerns or not isn’t important if you are able to convince the target population that you care about them and that you will meet their needs. Once you have analyzed the concerns of your target population you can develop your message to best appeal to and manage their opinions.

The Leader

The second element is to create a cult of personality around the leader. Generally, the leader will be a charismatic and effective speaker. On other occasions, he simply may be someone they would “like to have a beer with”. If a bond can be created it doesn’t matter how. The leader doesn’t have to have a true concern for the target group as long as they believe he does. Once the leader and the target group have bonded, he will have an easier time manipulating them. The stronger they are connected to him personally, the less scrutiny they will give to his ideas.

The Others

The next element is to identify the “other” group that will be the focus of attacks. The first step is to create fear of this group. Once your target population has developed a significant fear of whatever this group may be accused of, be it crime, immorality, or “unAmericanism”, a program is put in place to demonize them. The purpose of the early program is to generate a high level of unreasoning fear of this group within the target population. Fear is difficult to control, so once this stage has been reached, the fear must be converted to hate through repeated attacks blaming the “others” for every grievance the target group has experienced. Hate is easier to focus and to direct. People can be more easily rallied to action, even violence, in response to hate.

Action

Once hate of the “other” group has been raised to a significant level, your target population can be moved to action. Be that unquestioning acceptance of ideas, voting for whatever candidates you identify, or even resorting to violence to suppress the “others”.

This is the stage where real political power begins to flow from your propaganda program. Your supporters have given up all efforts at critical thinking and blindly accept whatever orders you give in the misguided thought that you are concerned about them and their needs and are doing what is best for them and the country. They have become the weapon for implementing your agenda.

Conclusion

For those of you with an appreciation of history, this should resonate not only with the 20th century but with current events. If you would like to know the source of the quote I gave at the beginning of this section, contact me.

Having seen the effects of modern propaganda on our society, I am left in great despair. In a future post I’m going to be discussing how social media has significantly increased the rate of spread and the effectiveness of propaganda and other disinformation programs.

The Agony of Presidental Elections

By John Turley

On July 6, 2024

In Commentary, History, Politics

Over the past several months I have become increasingly discouraged as I watch the sad spectacle of the presidential election play out in the newspapers and on the electronic media. It seems the candidates are more interested in serving themselves than in serving the people. Each is convinced that he is the only one who can save the country. While one is obsessed with regaining the power of the president, the other is reluctant to relinquish it.

This has left me wondering if there’s not a better way to elect the president. As everyone knows we elect a president for four years and then they can be reelected for an additional four years. But this was not always the way our electoral process has been structured.

A brief history of presidential terms

Perhaps second only to slavery, the office of president was one of the most controversial subjects at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. There were extensive debates about the structure of the office, the power of the chief executive, and even if it should be a single person. There was a proposal put forward by Edmund Randolph of Virginia for a three-person executive committee to head the government.

There were proposals for a short-term presidency of one or two years, arguing that more frequent elections would ensure the chief executive was more responsible to the people. There were also proposals for longer terms such as 7 or even 15 years. The intent of longer terms was to provide the president with independence from the influence of special interests and provide for more stable government.

There is a popular misconception that Alexander Hamilton favored a president for life. While he advocated for a strong presidency with certain aspects of a monarch, he also recognized the importance of a fixed term and the provision for impeachment to safeguard the country against abuse of power.

After it became clear to most delegates that George Washington would become the first president, the convention decided on a four-year term for the president. The constitution as originally adopted did not explicitly state that the president can be reelected, nor did it prohibit reelection. Not all delegates were in favor of allowing the president to be reelected because they felt it would result in too much power being consolidated the hands of the single person. As often happens in politics, no decision was made, and the Constitution as adopted was silent on reelection.

The issue of term length did not end with the ratification of the constitution. The first proposed constitutional amendment to change the length of the presidential term was introduced in 1808. Since then, multiple amendments have been proposed to extend the term to five, six, seven or even eight years. By the early 1900s the single six-year term had become the dominant idea being proposed. Amendments to change the term of the presidential office were introduced as late as the 1990s. Although persistent in their reappearance, none have ever had any realistic chance of being approved.

George Washington set the precedent of serving only two terms by retiring to Mount Vernon at the end of eight years in office. This pattern was followed until Franklin Roosevelt ran for a third and then a fourth term. After Roosevelt’s death, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was passed by Congress in 1947, and ratified in 1951, limiting the president to two total terms in office.

Other countries have different patterns for their chief executive’s term of office. Parliamentary countries have no set term. Elections can be called, and the chief executive removed from office whenever confidence in the government has fallen, and the public demands a change. Other countries such as Mexico, the Philippines and Chile have a single six-year term for president.

If we were to consider a single six-year term for the US president how would that change things. Let’s look at a few of the pros and cons.

The arguments in favor of a single six-year term

The president would be relieved of the burden of an almost constant reelection campaign. With a single term, a president can focus on policy and governance without being distracted by the next election cycle. This may lead to bolder, more decisive leadership, unencumbered by the need to cater to special interest groups. Those groups may be less inclined to make large political contributions knowing that they hold no future sway over the actions of the president.

There may be potential for greater continuity in policymaking. Presidents could be more inclined to tackle unpopular long-term challenges head-on, rather than deferring them to a second term or even to their successor. The president may be more likely to engage in bipartisan programs knowing that there is no need to appease party radicals during a reelection process. The president could be more likely to engage in long term planning rather than worry about what will look good in the polls in the short term. This may result in fewer political decisions made just to improve reelection chances.

Not having to run for reelection would also give the president more time to work for the country and the citizens. The time and the effort put into planning campaigns, making speeches, and attending reelection events could be spent improving the government and the country. If the president has more time to work closely with Congress, then there could be less gridlock in Washington. In sum, the single six-year term may allow the president to be the statesman they all claim to be.

The arguments against a single six-year term

A single six-year term could diminish the accountability of the president to the electorate. In a traditional two-term system, presidents are incentivized to deliver on their promises and perform effectively to secure re-election. With only one term to serve, there may be less pressure for a president to maintain high levels of performance throughout their tenure. This could result in complacency or a lack of motivation to pursue ambitious reforms, knowing there won’t be a chance for the electorate to hold them accountable.

A single six-year term could disrupt the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. With the absence of a potential second term, presidents may become more inclined to bypass Congress and govern through executive orders and unilateral actions. This could lead to increased polarization and gridlock, as Congress may resist executive overreach, exacerbating tensions between branches of government.

If the president proves to be inept or not acting in the best interests of the people and the nation, six years is a long time for that person to be in office. The only option would be impeachment and we know from recent experience that impeachment is a long and painful process frequently generating more ill will than good results.

And in conclusion…

So, would a single six-year presidential term be a good thing or a bad thing? Would it help us get out of our current political mess?

Perhaps it would have no impact at all. Perhaps it’s not the length of the presidential term, the number of terms the president serves, or even how we elect the president. Perhaps the real problem lies with us. It doesn’t matter how we elect our president if we don’t do a better job deciding who the candidates will be. It’s been said many times that people get the government they deserve. We all complain about it and yet we continue voting for the same type of people year after year.

Of all the people to blame for the current political situation, the one in the mirror is the one to whom we should look first. Because, after all, that’s the only person we can control.

And that is my grumpy opinion.