Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
In three sentences Federalist No. 71 conveys the primary reason to prefer a republic over a democracy:
It is a just observation, that the people commonly INTEND the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always REASON RIGHT about the MEANS of promoting it. (emphasis original)
By separating the people from direct decision-making a republic insulates the nation from mob rule.
I found great irony in the following truth:
The representatives of the people, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the people themselves, and betray strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter; as if the exercise of its rights, by either the executive or judiciary, were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity.
Sometimes today it seems that the representatives of the people in our "popular" assembly have fancied that they are the people themselves and they often appear impatient or disgusted at opposition from the voters when they are busy trying to promote the will of the President.
In talking about the duration in office of the president (Federalist No. 72), Hamilton comes out in staunch opposition to term limits:
Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection, than a scheme which in relation to the present point has had some respectable advocates, I mean that of continuing the chief magistrate in office for a certain time, and then excluding him from it.
As in various other decisions in the original Constitution we have changed our stance on that since that time. Unlike other such examples I believe that this change has been positive or at least neutral for the nation. In fact I have been one to favor the possibility of adding term limitations to other elected positions. There is one way in which I could see someone arguing that term limits may have contributed to our imperial presidency:
An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to a time when he must at all events yield up the emoluments he enjoyed, would feel a propensity, not easy to be resisted by such a man, to make the best use of the opportunity he enjoyed while it lasted, and might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients to make the harvest as abundant as it was transitory;
I’d love to hear other perspectives on whether our two term limit on the presidency has been a good or bad thing for the country now that we have had half a century to see the results.
3 replies on “Federalist Nos. 71 – 72”
Publius’ take on term limitation is that it could invite the chief executive to be on the take. I see his point, but I don’t see that this has been worse or better with a term limited president than with a president free of such restrictions.
The other objections to term limits is that it can create a lack of continuity. Instead of the elected official being in charge, his unelected handlers and staff are the ones that actually run the show because they have tenure and know the ins and outs of the system.
I see how this can happen in legislative positions, as much of the staff continues regardless of who holds the office. But the president is different. There is obviously quite a bit of continuity when presidents of the same party follow each other, but when the presidency shifts to a different party, it results in sweeping changes throughout the administration. At any rate, term limits makes it very difficult for a small group of cronies to pull the strings of power for very long.
However, once a president is elected to a second term, he is essentially a lame duck. This has both pluses and minuses. There is a certain amount of pressure that is applied when a president knows he will be facing voters down the road. When that pressure is gone, it frees the office holder to do things he thinks are best without having to care so much about angering voters. This is a mixed bag. I can’t see that this has been either better or worse.
Thanks for your thoughts. I’ll take that as one vote for “term limits have been relatively neutral.”
Anyone else care to chime in?
(You’re right, that is a good quote and applies deliciously to our conversation this morning!)