On the Election and Continuation of the President of the United States
There has been chatter again lately ... as there has been with nearly every Presidential election going back to Jimmy Carter's in 1976 (and probably before, but I just cannot remember) about amending the U.S. Constitution to provide for the direct election of the President by popular vote, rather than through the framers' mechanism of the Electoral College. These calls increase in shrillness whenever a minority President (by popular vote) is elected, or when there is a contentious election like that of 2000.
This call seems to have greater appeal for Democrats than Republicans, perhaps because it seems to reflect a more populist mindset, or perhaps because the Democratic Party has traditionally enjoyed an edge in the plurality of party affiliation. But whether it's cold political calculus ("whether"? did I really say "whether"?) alone, or whether there is an admixture of philosophy behind it, it's a dubious proposition at best.
I say that the framers were wise, and doing away with the College would be a bad idea. Why?
First of all, because it fits with the federalist vision of the Constitution. The problem of population-versus-regional representation is not a new one: it goes back to Virginia and Pennsylvania versus Connecticut and Rhode Island in the 1780's. Abandoning the federalist model would lead to shifts in our political calculus as a country which could effectively freeze out some areas from the levers of power. My own state of Maryland provides an instructive example: since the 1960's, both houses of the General Assembly have been based on population, with the effect that, should any 2 of the three big jurisdictions in the state (by number of people) agree as touches anything on earth, or at least within Maryland, it shall be done for them almost assuredly. (The "Big Three" are Montgomery and Prince Georges counties, and Baltimore City.) This doesn't mean that the outlying counties have no voice (they just have to sway the Big Boys) or influence (the powerful president of the state senate is from Southern Maryland, for instance), but the political clout of much of the state is severely burdened and diluted by this strictly-representational scheme. Which, not coincidentally, also helps to maintain the perpetual majority of one party in power.
In the election of 2000, we witnessed the Florida Fiasco with the crazily compromised balloting of a few jurisdictions, most notoriously West Palm Beach County. Niceties like "hanging chads" would have been a humorous footnote to the election, to which only the most dedicated students of electoral arcana would have paid any attention, were the election not so close that a few popular votes within one closely-contested and very populous state could affect the whole election. This will happen from time to time in any system. There will also be occasional shenanigans, like the stuffed and missing ballot boxes of Texas in 1948, or the (alleged) unsubtle stacking of votes in certain urban precincts like Philadelphia in 2012. But make the whole thing by popular vote, and these problems multiply to potentially as many precincts as there are from sea to shining sea. Every county has the potential to become West Palm Beach. Do we really want that?
A strictly popular vote in a country with predictably "blue" coasts and upper Midwest and "red" prairie and South also invites a permanent sectionalism which would be seen (rightly) as effectively disenfranchising large swaths of the country whose values and political philosophy do not match those of the big cities or coasts. What happens when large numbers of people believe that the political calculus is permanently stacked against them? See 1776. Or 1861. Also not what we want. The current system provides enough uncertainty and shift to keep one region or cluster of regions from gaining a permanent lock on power.
So keep the College. On the other hand, I think we should scrap the 22nd Amendment, limiting the President to two terms in office. The idea of doing away with this amendment, which is particularly championed by Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who introduces a measure to repeal every session and has done so again in the new Congress last month, is one whose time has come.
The 22nd is a codification of tradition going back to George Washington, which held sway from the first through the 31st presidents. The idea was that the American president is different from monarchs; a traditional limit of two terms prevents a king or Napoleon-like figure from emerging. The exigences of World War II was the rationale used by FDR for seeking a third, then a fourth, term. Congress decided to prevent that from happening again by passing the 22nd Amendment, which was proposed in 1947 and ratified almost exactly four years later in 1951. It limits the President to two terms or, in the case of succession to complete a predecessor's term, ten years (half of a term plus two more) in office. (Harry Truman, who was President at the time, was excluded from the law.)
In my opinion, there are good reasons for enacting a 28th amendment repealing the 22nd.
First, and in my mind the most compelling argument, is that any second-term President becomes a lame duck almost the day he (or in the future, she) takes the oath for that second time. The chief of state's hand would be strengthened politically simply with the possibility of election to a subsequent term. In that case, lame-duck status would not begin until after a decision not to run again, or a subsequent lost election. It would also change the stature of former presidents who, like Grover Cleveland (who won) and Theodore Roosevelt (who lost) would always be potential future presidents as well.
A second reason is more philosophical. With the exceptions of the native-born citizen rule and the age requirement (35 years), both of which are in the Constitution, we the people can elect whomever we please as chief executive. Oops, except for someone who has filled two terms already. In effect, one generation has bound the decisions of future ones about who can or cannot be chosen to lead the country. Such is in my view a fundamentally misbegotten idea.
Third, I believe that the world today is much more like the world of FDR than the world of George Washington in two significant ways. We are engaged in ongoing global crisis intervention to a much greater degree, and requiring a much greater acumen (presumably to be gained by experience in office) than in GW's time. Also, we live, on average, much longer and in better health than in Washington's time -- or indeed, than even in the days of Franklin and Harry. It seems silly to limit the use to which the experience of an incumbent, or former president, can be put.
We have examples of world leaders around us who have served long and well. Britain's case is perhaps the most instructive, with Margaret Thatcher (Conservative) and Tony Blair (Labor) both doing well with long tenures, longer in both cases than any American president could serve (11.5 years for Thatcher, 10 years and a month for Blair). Francois Mitterand served 14 years, or two consecutive seven-year terms as president of France, also effectively and with distinction.
We might ask, how might history have been different had there been no 22nd? The presidents affected would have been those from Eisenhower to the present (so far). Eisenhower's age and health would likely have prevented his seeking a third term. Kennedy was assassinated. Johnson chose not to seek the second full term that he could have sought because of unpopularity stemming from the Vietnam War. Nixon resigned during his second term. Ford was defeated at his one attempt to be elected President in his own right, and Carter served for one term only. Reagan probably could not have been re-elected for a third term, given his age and the Alzheimer's Disease which was beginning to become apparent and to which he would eventually succumb -- though he certainly enjoyed sufficient popularity to stand again. George Bush (41) was defeated on his re-election bid. Clinton probably could have, and would have, been re-elected. George W. Bush (43) would likely not have stood, and would likely not have won. It is too early to tell about President Obama.
Thus in the history of the United States since Truman, there is only one person who likely could have run and been re-elected. Though I am not a huge fan of Mr. Bill, it is worth pausing to think about how he might have handled, say, 9-11-2001. One could argue that our national foreign and security policies up to that time contributed to the attack's success. And certainly it is hard to imagine President Clinton reacting with the same quick decisiveness that won accolades and respect for Bush soon after 9/11. But Clinton also enjoyed a kind of respect and cooperative relationship around the world that we have not seen since those early post-9/11 days, and it's quite possible he might have avoided some of the mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan under his successors. In other words, we could have done worse than re-electing Bill Clinton. And arguably, have.
The Framers were not omniscient. Parts of the Constitution have at times desperately cried out for amendment, such as those concerning human servitude and the election of senators. Oversights have needed to be corrected, injustices righted, and things that just didn't work, fixed. But in most ways Mr. Madison and his peers got it amazingly right. And to my mind, these two, the Electoral College and the absence of a term limit for the President of the United States, are among them.
So let's keep the College, and ditch the 22nd.
Prince Frederick, Maryland (Providence)
No comments:
Post a Comment