The Candidates
The always provocative wordsmith Peggy Noonan posits it would be to John McCain’s advantage if he were to pledge to serve a single term.
Meanwhile, John McCain makes daily, small, incremental gains. He happily watches the Democrats fight and happily advances his cause. Did you see him on “Hardball” the other night with the college students of Villanova? They were beside themselves at the sight of him. It seems to me it would be a brilliant thing for him to announce he means to be a one-term president, that he means to have a clean, serious, one-term presidency in which he will do things those under pressure of re-election do not and cannot do. This would be received as a refreshment, a way out for the voters in a year they seem to want a way out.
I find myself torn on this notion. As a conservative I do not think (or do not want to think) of McCain as the future of the party. Four years spent rebuilding the Republican brand, making the tax cuts permanent, and replacing Stevens and Ginsburg on SCOTUS would constitute a wildly successful presidency in my estimation. McCain already says he is “older than dirt”. In 2012 he’ll be older than dirt +4 years. To pledge a single term may insure he wins in November with an ambivalent electorate.
That said, declaring that you will only serve one term will embolden congressional Democrats to thwart legislation and bottle-up judges in committee.
Perhaps how you answer this question depends on your preference for vice president — the most heated topic on this blog in recent weeks.
Use the comments to make your case for or against the pledge of a single term.
April 19th, 2008 at 7:58 am
I recall Ross Perot pledging to only serve one term also. If I were John McCain, I would only make a pledge like this if I was not doing well in the polls anyway. If McCain, come September, continues to lead Obama, he should just play things safe and not make pledges like this. Once he gets sworn in, a pledge like this would only hurt, it would embolden the Congressional Democrats.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am
I think pledging to serve a single term probably draws unnecessary attention to his age. He’d need to find some convincing rationale for the decision that has nothing to do with age. Something like you suggested would be fine. And the “I’m going to fight for the American people without worrying about getting re-elected” would fit well with McCain’s Maverick, principled image. But, again, he’d still I think be drawing attention to his age. So I’m a little ambivalent too. I agree with you that I don’t particularly want McCain to be the future of the party and that I expect, one way or another, that he won’t be our nominee in 2012; it’s better for him to leave on a principled basis, then for us to force him out. But, still…
April 19th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I don’t recall RR pledging to serve only one term. I believe that the people who vote for a President generally look for a second term.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I think the better approach would be to promise voters he would only run for re-election IF he gets a clean bill of health the year before. I get Noonan’s logic — if McCain served only one term Reagan would remain the oldest President ever, but I think the idea of going into office a lame duck is a bad one.
By the way, I don’t see how the age issue hurt Reagan much (unless you think 50 state electoral college routs are the norm). It was a problem for Dole, but that had a lot to do with Dole’s appearance and energy level, and that unfortunate fainting spell didn’t help. Not talking ideology here, but on the age issue, he seems much, much closer to Reagan than Dole.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I really do think McCain should stop after one time, but he shouldn’t announce it before this election.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I remember a similar discussion coming up in 1996 when Dole was nominated. Back then, I was a True Believer, a new Republican convert from my initial identity as a Perotista, idealistic and ideological, not yet tainted by the cynicism and realism that I have absorbed in the interim. At the time, I loved the idea that was being floated that Bob Dole would simply be a one-term caretaker president who would hold the White House while Republicans figured out who they really wanted to lead their party and movement, and the country. Well, we saw just how much independents and Democrats warmed to the idea of a Republican caretaker president in the results of that election.
Independents, Democrats, and Republicans who voted McCain in the primaries aren’t voting McCain in the fall in order to safely segue into the leadership of Movement Conservative 3.0 in 2012. Republicans who voted McCain in the primaries actually WANT McCain to be president. And non-Republicans who vote for McCain will be motivated to select him because they believe in him, or because they can’t stomach the remaining Democrat, not because they are anxiously awaiting Santorum ‘12.
In fact, the only thing such an announcement by McCain would do is make him seem the puppet of a conservative base that didn’t even support him in the primaries. That might help among the base, but as Sean Oxendine demonstrated in a post on the front page recently, it’s the indies and Dems who are flocking to McCain in states like MA when Obama leads the D ticket. As such, I think McCain should act like a leader, not a lapdog, and run for those indies and Dems for whom Obama is a bridge too far, and I don’t think Peggy’s strategy will be particularly effective at winning those voters.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I’ve never much cared for term limits, voluntary or not. The people should be able to vote for whomever they want. I say this as someone who was ecstatic to see the back of Bill Clinton as he left the White House.
Once a person is term limited, he is, by definition, a lame duck. This always decreases his effectiveness.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I think the entire idea of a two-term president is stupid anyway. After the second year, the entire half of the term is devoted to seeking re-election. Plus presidents never really seem to do well in their second term either. Reagan’s second-term was pretty useless. So was Clinton’s and Obviously W’s.
Why not just have a single six-year term?
April 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Pledging to only serve one term would actually do more to de-fuse the age issue than call attention to it. It’s obvious that the Democrats will use the age issue. Let’s face it….McCain is already too old to be president. The pledge would take some of the sting out of one of the Left’s major lines of attack in the fall. Then, if Obama pushes the issue too hard, it will look like he’s picking on the geriatric ex-chain smoking cancer patient who has magnanimously conceded the probability that he would die or go senile during a 2nd term. McCain could then, more credibly, call attention to his opponent’s youth and inexperience.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:04 am
“It’s obvious that the Democrats will use the age issue”
Let them. The young kids are going to vote for Obama anyway. Older voters come out in droves and the age factor isn’t going to deter them from voting for McCain. Especially not in PA, OH and FL.
The age thing didn’t work to the Dems advantage with Reagan in 1984 and he was 73.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I think having a re-election opportunity is important. It makes you strive harder to do better on the first term… and on the second you can coast on whatever you reaped in the first.
Mexico has single 6 year terms, which makes presidents sloppy and greedy. Instead of striving to stay in the power by good management, they only seek ways to enrich the rest of their lives since they won’t have a job afterwards… which makes me think of what will Obama will do when he retires from the presidency?
In my opinion, pledging for a single term is a bad idea no matter how you look at it. I want a president who will give his best to his country and not think about serving only one term.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am
This is one reason why a single 6-year term as President, like some other countries do, makes sense. Get in there, get stuff done without worrying about the politics of getting re-elected, then get out and let the next guy/gal have their shot.
Not saying I favor that system - I actually haven’t thought through it very much at all - but I read it somewhere a year or so ago and the idea intrigues me.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:06 am
#2, 6, both good rationales. Gary, McCain is actually a pretty conservative guy. I don’t know why you are in a tizzy. He’s solid on judges. As for taxes, here’s some straight talk, it’s a real uphill climb to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Pelosi is going to fight like the witch she is. Although, I heard Rangel is open to a corp tax cut. McCain can’t do any damage on immigration; none of his reforms will make it through the senate. I’m very liberal on the environment, so I say go McCain! But really, on life and taxes and spending he’s going to be okay.
No way should he serve one term. I agree with 2 and 6, it calls attention to his age and McCain is not going to reward the DC GOP elite that was against him and for Rudey 9iu11ani. This is a guy who wnated to be president since the late 90s. No way is he going to be a single term pres if he can be reelected.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Ha! How ironic that we post the same thing at the same exact time with polar opposite conclusions…
It seems to me that a single 6 year term would allow a President to give their best to their country without having to worry about hemming and hawing on controversial issues needed to get them re-elected.
And as you point out, whether you serve 4, 6, or 8 years as a President, the end result of “not having a job” is the same. It’s not like you can be President for life in America (as much as the libs thought that was what W was going to try and do), so I’m failing to see your point there.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am
“This is a guy who wnated to be president since the late 90s. No way is he going to be a single term pres if he can be reelected.”
I agree with this comment, but the question isn’t whether or not McCain will - it’s whether or not it will be better for the GOP and the country if he did only serve one term.
And I guess it depends on your perspective whether or not you think McCain’s solid on judges and taxes. Go14, Chafee, and McCain-Lieberman come to mind…
If he can stick to that economic plan he released last week as far as taxes and fiscal issues are concerned, he’ll be great. If he reverts to the McCain of 2000-2006, the base is probably going to have some issues and the possibility of having a primary against a sitting President in 2012 starts to become slightly more realistic.
April 19th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Declaring yourself a lame duck before you even set foot in the Oval Office is a horrible idea. As with the War, you don’t give away your end-game strategy to your enemy.
I am adamantly against term limits of any kind for any politician anyway. To say that term limits would allow a person to “get in there are get the work done” implies that there’s a set list of things to do and once they’re accomplished the pres can go home. Fact is, that job changes day-to-day (minute-to-minute!). I’d argue that as long as the pres is doing his job to the satisfaction of the voters, let him/her stay as long as we want him to.
Term limits, especially the 22nd amendment to the Constitution, are incredibly anti-democratic (ironically voters themselves often choose to set these limits through the ballot). If I like a candidate, and he/she meets all constitutional requirements for the job, why should anyone else have the right to tell me I can’t vote for him/her? Why should other Americans have more say over who I can vote for than the constitution does? I’m amazed term limits ever made it through the courts to begin with, let alone making into the constitution. To me, term limits defy the spirit of the document, and only erode the rights of voters.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
There’s no benefit to being a lame duck from Day 1, and I don’t think it’s likely that many people who would vote against him will decide, “Well, I don’t like him, but four years wouldn’t be bad.” Doesn’t make sense.
If he’s in poor health going into 2012, that’s the appropriate time to make a decision. By the way, Pope Benedict, who has a fairly demanding job and appears to be fulfilling it, is 81.
Re 6-year terms — the Philippines has the same system as Mexico, with much the same results. The idea in putting it in place was to prevent another Marcos, which has worked out, but it just means that the subsequent presidents have started stealing earlier in their terms to make up for not being able to steal at leisure.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
IR-MN, I am not in a tizzy. This discussion thread was merely to discuss the electoral ramifications of a one-term pledge.
I invited others to make the case for or against such a plege for their own reasons.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Gary, I was being facetious. Didn’t mean anything more of it.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
A single-term pledge would only make sense if the candidate were promising to implement a certain set of policies within that time period — something like James K. Polk did. But I’m not sure such a gambit would be as likely to work in modern times.
I can’t imagine anyone actually being drawn to the ballot box by a candidate’s promise to bow out after four. It’s not an appealing prospect, in particular not while pollsters find the public overwhelmingly to think the country is headed in the wrong direction. For McCain to promise just four would essentially be a promise to “stay the course” for four years until someone suitable arrives. Who would feel inspired by that?
I disagree with the single six-year-term idea: The term is rather long, and voters ultimately do not hold the president to account afterwards at the ballot box. While it is true that term limits are undemocratic, the 22nd Amendment was put in place to restore the two-term maximum for presidents first established by Washington. But FDR apparently felt that this old tradition was worth less than his own perception of his own greatness.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
The two-term tradition had been effectively violated at least twice before FDR. Both Grant and Teddy had sought third terms (though Teddy’s would have been more like two and seven-eighths).
April 19th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
My take on all of this is to make no pledge to only serve 1 term. John McCain should serve the 2 terms if he wants to and if his health permits. John McCain is currently in good health and has alot of energy, as he held over 100 town hall meeting’s for the New Hampshire Primary. I think John McCain can leave office in 2016 at the age of 80 and he will have been the greatest president this country has ever had. Also you can take a look at what’s going on currently here in the U.S with Pope Benedict, who just turned 81 years old and he’s doing just fine and he is a great leader for the Catholic Church and can still make good decision about his Church. So if John McCain is in good health then he should have no problem making good informed decisions regarding the future of this great country.
McCain/Pawlenty 08
April 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
The reason why second-term Presidents usually suck is because everybody in their party and administration, along with the rest of the country, is focused on what happens next. When people know you’re going to be gone soon, you lose power. McCain declaring that he would only serve one term would just give him the diminished status as a second-termer but without the benefit of the experience and in-place team a second-termer has. Horrible idea.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I’m torn too. Because of the age thing, there’s a good chance McCain shouldn’t run for a second term and I don’t trust his judgment in this regard. But announcing he’ll be a one-term guy might just draw attention to his age right now which could hurt in the election.
The lame duck argument doesn’t persuade me so much. The President has an enormous amount of power simply by virtue of being the President, and frankly McCain might be in a much better position to credibly threaten legislators that he’ll be campaigning for their opponents if he won’t need to be campaigning for himself. Lame duck presidents don’t accomplish much at the end of their term, because all the political oxygen is on the race to replace, it is true. But non-lame duck presidents also don’t accomplish much at the end of their first term, because of all the time and effort they have to put towards their re-election. Also, for both lame ducks and non-lame ducks Congress equally tends to postpone major legislation in the last year or so of the term until after the election. So that’s not a big factor.
Ultimately I guess I think McCain should make the one-term pledge. I still think this election could be desperately close, and I think a one-term pledge from McCain would help cross-over Dem and Dem-leaning voters feel like they could take a flier on him because its just four years, after all.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I disagree with the single six-year-term idea: The term is rather long, and voters ultimately do not hold the president to account afterwards at the ballot box.
What if it were 6 years with a recall type election at the end of the third? Just tossing an idea out there.
April 19th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
25. . .That’s getting too close to a Parliamentary system of government, where the party in power can be voted out before the term ends. Sometimes it works - Great Britain’s governments rarely fall to the opposition - but more often they prevent stability from ever taking hold - Italy just elected their 62nd government since WWII. Four-year terms have worked just fine in the US for more than two centuries, so I don’t see a need to mess with it. But, as stated earlier, I’d like an immediate repeal of the 22nd amendment and an end to term limits at all levels of government. After all, we already have term limits inherent in our voting system - every four years the voters get to decide if they like the one holding office. If they do, he stays. If they don’t, he’s term limited. Official term limits only serve to allow the minority to dictate for whom the majority can vote. Very un-American, I’d say.
April 20th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Should he serve one term? Yes. McCain is too old, too ill, and too liberal for me to want him in office for eight years.
Should he announce his intention? no. It would make him a lame duck.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:31 am
[...] Matthew Miller ponders the suggestion that John McCain should pledge only to serve one term: I find myself torn on this [...]
April 21st, 2008 at 6:54 am
That’s getting too close to a Parliamentary system of government, where the party in power can be voted out before the term ends. Sometimes it works - Great Britain’s governments rarely fall to the opposition - but more often they prevent stability from ever taking hold - Italy just elected their 62nd government since WWII.
The main difference between GB and Italy is that Great Britain does first past the post voting like we do and Italy does proportional representation like most of the rest of the world does. So in Italy you get a bazillion parties in their parliament and you can only rule with an unstable coalition.
But in fact my suggestion would be even more stable than Britain because in Britain in theory the government could lose its majority at any time. Under the system I’m talking about, the President would be in office for at minimum three years, and probably for all six (I’m betting that a recall would only happen about 10% of the time, its main function being to ensure that the President doesn’t go too far off the rails).
April 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am
[...] mant to address this earlier, but I thought that Gary Matthew Miller of Race 4 2008Â (via Peggy Noonan) raised a interesting point about a one-term pledge from John McCain: I find [...]