I'd certainly vote for him again if I had the chance--provided he wasn't running against Hillary.
He says there's an argument to be made for revising the two-term limit on the presidency. He noted how we got it in the first place--the GOP was ticked off at FDR's four terms. Also, he acknowledged that it is true that corruption is a problem when one group has been in power a long time. (He didn't say this, but they get corrupt in a short time too.)
On the other hand, he said, these days people have more vital lives for a longer period of time. Many people in their 80's are in positions of considerable authority.
But with life expectancy being so long and people being alert until they're in their 70s and sometimes in their 80s. Look at Paul Volcker, mid-80s, you know, he might as well be 40 years old in some ways, I think there's an argument for that.
Personally, I'd rather get rid of local term limits than presidential ones, but term limits of any kind strike me as undemocratic. You mean I can't support this person even though I want to?
This shows a hint of Clinton's shrewdness. He doesn't use that argument. He thinks the way to go is to note peoples' longevity and vitality. Which appeals more to people? Theoretical arguments about democracy? Or applauding peoples' energy?
In the past 60 years, incidentally, I can think of only two presidents who might have been able to win a third term--Eisenhower and Clinton--and it would have been difficult even for them.
Some would add Reagan, but the great popularity of Reagan is largely a conservative myth. In any case, his second term was a bust--if not his first--and people at the time were clearly ready to move on.
Comments