The President of the United States has many names: Commander and Chief, Head of State, Leader of the Free World. Our presidential system was founded on the principle that the president be a humble public servant. He is to be committed to loyally executing the powers of the Constitution. He is to uphold the laws passed by Congress and America and its values abroad. Basically, the president has a lot on his - or her - plate.
Unfortunately, presidents have a tendency to add to their plates a number of things they should not. Presidents are not leaders of their political parties. They are not the builders of their own, or their family's, fortune and legacy. And, most definitely, they should not be ambitious career politicians looking to advance an agenda, be it ideological or pragmatic.
Looking at our recent string of "Big Cheeses," we see a group of men firmly devoted to the latter category. These are politicians far more interested in the size of their future libraries then they are about the true good of the American people. With a job as big as theirs, one might think a little compensation is going on here.
The Commander in Chief likely possesses the spirited notion that once he becomes president, he knows better than anyone else. After all, he was the one elected, not that other guy who only got 49 percent of the vote.
The president is, unfortunately, a human being with human desires for power. But though we can't get rid of this human condition, we can certainly cut that ego down to size. To do so, then, we must institute a one-term presidency.
At this point, you probably wonder how one term is any better than two and how it will solve our political dilemma. First and foremost, there would be less bickering about how the term actually went. He came, he saw, and he's gone in four years. Next! What's that, you say? You feel WASP #1 did a great job and should stay another term? Well, someone else thinks that WASP #2 could do a better job. And the best part is, it doesn't matter, because your petty reelection battle becomes moot.
Instead, we can talk about that innocuous bill coming up in the Senate: the one that will cut the Department of Education/allow torture/make immigrants wear funny hats. Doesn't that seem a little more relevant than which president you'd like to have a beer with? Well, it doesn't matter; the president doesn't know you and probably wouldn't like you. The point is, a one-term presidency would eliminate a pointless referendum on the sitting president.
Secondly, a one-term president would stop wasting his first term trying to get reelected. Right now, every new president who comes in tries for a month, realizes that reelection is in a mere four years and then begins to appease the base. It's like a freshman putting off his hardest classes until next semester, because there's some major partying to do this term, so why not take Astronomy, sleep in late and still get a B-minus? As long as you don't flunk out, your parents will keep footing the bill
In the same way, a president in his first term takes the easy way out, usually by blaming immigrants/communists/gays/terrorists/terrorist immigrants. It's like every new presidency is a season of "24." Or I suppose he could detonate a bomb; nothing raises flagging poll numbers like waving that bloody uniform around.
And third - when was the last time a president's second term has been successful? Eisenhower had race riots, Johnson had Vietnam, Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra (the least of his problems), Clinton had Monica Lewinsky and Bush has ... where to start? Each of these men displayed hubris and arrogance, but not because they knew they no longer had to think about reelection.
A one-term president would know that in advance. The trouble is reelection itself. The mass-approval seems to bring about "mandate-itis," a condition typically characterized by flagrantly ignoring the wishes of the public and Congress, with serious symptoms such as an inflamed ego and a basic lack of common sense. He starts to push for things nobody in their right mind wants and actually thinks they can get by spending his so-called political capital.
Now, critics might argue that implementing this is bad for political consistency. After all, who wants a bunch of one-term executive nannies running around barely having time to schedule the photo-op signing of a bill, let alone the photo-op with foreign leaders?
However, with so few presidents serving for more than two terms anyway, that's hardly an argument. Furthermore, we don't need a guy in the White House consistently setting the agenda around himself and his unique vision of the world. That is pretty much a dictator. Congress sets the policies, and Congress must set the momentum by gradually reacting to public opinion through semi-organized debate - and maybe, a few glasses of bourbon in the back room. The less we know about the President, the less we care about him as an individual. To reiterate, he is there to sign laws, represent us and fill any gaps in the process, be they judges, generals or puppet leaders. Maybe then we'll stop treating them like celebrities and stop caring about their source of oral sex.
While we can't stop the megalomaniacal wet dreams of wannabe presidential candidates, we can at least limit the damage he brings when he comes to office. It won't fix our courts, lawmakers, military, education, or environment, but it's a start.
And as they say, change has to start at the top.
Dmitriy Doroshenko is a senior majoring in economics.
