Why do national leaders only get a few years?

[Stripe]

Nations seem to think it's a good idea to change leaders every few years. Why?

A few years on the job and then out is no way to generate stability and progress. It can take people in normal jobs that long to become proficient at what they do. Why on Earth would we make a system where nobody could ever become a truly competent national leader?

What you'll get is a bureaucracy taking over.

:think:

What we've got is bureaucracies in control.

 

[Jonahdog]

Nations seem to think it's a good idea to change leaders every few years. Why?

A few years on the job and then out is no way to generate stability and progress. It can take people in normal jobs that long to become proficient at what they do. Why on Earth would we make a system where nobody could ever become a truly competent national leader?

What you'll get is a bureaucracy taking over.

:think:

What we've got is bureaucracies in control.

At least in part because having one man or one group in charge for years and years leads to dictatorial issues.
In the US, the President is term limited but Senators and Representatives are not at the Federal level. Does that give us the deal locked Congress?

 

[Stripe]

Because having one man or one group in charge for years and years leads to dictatorial issues.

Like where you can go to jail for having straws?

This is argumentum ad consequentiam. I was hoping for a constructive discussion. :up:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nations seem to think it's a good idea to change leaders every few years. Why?

A few years on the job and then out is no way to generate stability and progress. It can take people in normal jobs that long to become proficient at what they do. Why on Earth would we make a system where nobody could ever become a truly competent national leader?

What you'll get is a bureaucracy taking over.

:think:

What we've got is bureaucracies in control.

I don't get it either. You look at history and the rulers who rule best, who the people like the most, are the ones who have been ruling a long time.

King David ruled for 40 years. He messed up big time a few times, and unfortunately didn't raise his kids right, but because he was truly sorry for anything he did wrong, which is why God loved him so much and included David in the lineage of Jesus.

Hezekiah, 29 year reign.

Asa, 41 years

Jehosephat, 25 years

Joash, 40 years

Amaziah, 29 years

All good kings...

http://www.ldolphin.org/kings.html

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Well, a primary reason is these examples:
Gaius Caligula
Pope John XII
King John
King Richard II
Ivan IV ‘the Terrible’
Mary, Queen of Scots
Emperor Rudolf II
Queen Ranavalona I of Madagascar
King Leopold II of Belgium
President Putin of Russia

The Founding Fathers did not want a permanent political class though as things turned out they got it anyway. Leaders were expected to be members of the community that stood up, served for a short time and then stepped aside for new blood. George Washington is the one who set the tradition that the President should only serve two terms. It was not a requirement in the original constitution and the public wanted him to serve longer but he was growing tired and disliked the early versions of what would become political parties.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the Fathers were divided on the issue of term limits with many wanting them to put into the Constitution. Jefferson was strongly in the latter camp so when he followed Washington into the office he cemented the tradition by limiting his terms to two and publically calling for a constitutional amendment to make the limit law.

This finally happened after FDR became the first president to break that tradition.

Thomas Jefferson, a student of European history, did not attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But upon his return from France, he took one look at the proposed Constitution and spotted a key omission.

“The…feature I dislike, and greatly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance of the necessity of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President,” he wrote.

He went on to describe the plight of Poland in the 16th-18th centuries, where a new system of election for monarchs was supposed to “exclude the idea of one continuable for life.” But, as Jefferson noted, that’s not how it worked out. Polish elections were a ruse — accessible only to members of rich and powerful dynasties — who would rarely leave office in spite of them. Sound familiar?

Jefferson’s skepticism of elections alone as a remedy to centralized power shows why he became known as the sage of Monticello. Nearly 200 years after his death, American journalists ask on a daily basis why elections can’t function as term limits. Jefferson knew the answer in 1787.

He remained a stalwart advocate for term limits for the rest of his life, speaking of the need for citizen legislators who could properly express the views of Americans in government. He decried “office-hunters,” the political animals who’d be subject to “degeneracy” after too much time in office.

THE FOUNDERS AND TERM LIMITS: JEFFERSON

Sadly, all the predictions of the pro-term limit camp in the Founders have come true in our modern politics with a professional political class existing in Washington and a two-party system rigged to keep them in power.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, a primary reason is these examples:
Gaius Caligula
Pope John XII
King John
King Richard II
Ivan IV ‘the Terrible’
Mary, Queen of Scots
Emperor Rudolf II
Queen Ranavalona I of Madagascar
King Leopold II of Belgium
President Putin of Russia

The Founding Fathers did not want a permanent political class though as things turned out they got it anyway. Leaders were expected to be members of the community that stood up, served for a short time and then stepped aside for new blood. George Washington is the one who set the tradition that the President should only serve two terms. It was not a requirement in the original constitution and the public wanted him to serve longer but he was growing tired and disliked the early versions of what would become political parties.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the Fathers were divided on the issue of term limits with many wanting them to put into the Constitution. Jefferson was strongly in the latter camp so when he followed Washington into the office he cemented the tradition by limiting his terms to two and publically calling for a constitutional amendment to make the limit law.

This finally happened after FDR became the first president to break that tradition.


THE FOUNDERS AND TERM LIMITS: JEFFERSON

Sadly, all the predictions of the pro-term limit camp in the Founders have come true in our modern politics with a professional political class existing in Washington and a two-party system rigged to keep them in power.

And yet...

Not a one of them ever legalized murder, homosexuality, adultery, or theft.

Here in America, the perverts run wild in the streets, babies are killed in the womb, thievery is expected on a daily basis, and if a man has sexual relations with another man's wife, there's practically nothing the husband can do but tolerate it.

 

[MennoSota]

I don't get it either. You look at history and the rulers who rule best, who the people like the most, are the ones who have been ruling a long time.

King David ruled for 40 years. He messed up big time a few times, and unfortunately didn't raise his kids right, but because he was truly sorry for anything he did wrong, which is why God loved him so much and included David in the lineage of Jesus.

Hezekiah, 29 year reign.

Asa, 41 years

Jehosephat, 25 years

Joash, 40 years

Amaziah, 29 years

All good kings...

http://www.ldolphin.org/kings.html

Mannasah...need I say more...

 

[Kit the Coyote]

And yet...

Not a one of them ever legalized murder, homosexuality, adultery, or theft.

Here in America, the perverts run wild in the streets, babies are killed in the womb, thievery is expected on a daily basis, and if a man has sexual relations with another man's wife, there's practically nothing the husband can do but tolerate it.

Those are issues related to the society itself, they can occur regardless of the leader is term-limited or not. Thinking that you can solve them by just having a President for Life is rather simplistic. I would suggest that if you think that is a good thing, you might try migrating to the countries that are trying just that, Putin's Russia for example. You will not achieve it in the US short of tearing up the Constitution.

The Pro-Life movement is an example of how you address one of the issues you mention.

 

[MennoSota]

Very few congress persons in the US get to their position without having years of public service. In a representative democracy the person is charged with representing the will of the people electing her or him. There are no term limits to their office. They must, however, be reelected. This keeps them grounded in serving their constituents. Those who remain in office for longer terms get more powerful committee roles. They also tend to use that power to get special "benefits" for their constituents.
One problem with this system is that there is no incentive to stop spending money and giving to constituents. The US is in unrecoverable debt due to this failure to balance the federal, national spending with intake from taxes and other revenue sources.
The conclusion is that the problem is not length of service or experience, but instead it is the corrupt nature of humanity when it is not kept in check.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Those are issues related to the society itself, they can occur regardless of the leader is term-limited or not.

As far as I'm aware, no monarch ever legalized any of those things. America however, has legalized them (adultery and theft are illegal still, but punishments for them are so low they're practically legal).

Whether they show up or not isn't what I was addressing. It's their legalization which I'm addressing, which IS a government related issue, and not necessarily a societal issue.

Thinking that you can solve them by just having a President for Life is rather simplistic.

King, not "president for life."

A king would be under the law just as much as the citizen would be. A constitutional monarchy WOULD solve such issues, because the constitution, not the king, would be what defines such actions as illegal.

I would suggest that if you think that is a good thing, you might try migrating to the countries that are trying just that, Putin's Russia for example. You will not achieve it in the US short of tearing up the Constitution.

Our Constitution is un-constitutional and SHOULD be torn up. But it won't happen in my lifetime, and God did not grant the authority for citizens to overthrow their government.

The Pro-Life movement is an example of how you address one of the issues you mention.

The current "Pro-Life" movement is increasingly more and more "pro-choice," and isn't worth supporting.

I'm a supporter of the "abolitionist" movement, which calls for the abolition of ALL abortion.

Mannasah...need I say more...

Even a wicked king can repent of the evil he has done. Mannaseh is no exception.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Well, given America's history good luck establishing a monarch. There was one possible option that was discussed a few years ago, it is technically possible for the US to rejoin the British Commonwealth, we would just have to pass an amendment recognizing Elisabeth as our monarch and under the similar arrangement that the other Commonwealth nations have, we would still maintain our current autonomous government. It would be more symbolic than anything. I rather liked the idea as I like the Queen but her heirs...not so much.

 

[Stripe]

The Founding Fathers did not want a permanent political class though as things turned out they got it anyway.

This is key, I think. People seek power and those who rise to the top find ways to stay there.

However, the prime minister or president gets three or four-year terms. They spend a lot of that time campaigning rather than leading. That means the people get a bureaucracy instead of a leader, a guaranteed downer.

Now, JR's list of good kings and your list of bad leaders is where the argument is, but isn't a situation where it's possible to get a good leader better than a system that guarantees bad?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Kit the Coyote]

This is key, I think. People seek power and those who rise to the top find ways to stay there.

However, the prime minister or president gets three or four-year terms. They spend a lot of that time campaigning rather than leading. That means the people get a bureaucracy instead of a leader, a guaranteed downer.

Now, JR's list of good kings and your list of bad leaders is where the argument is, but isn't a situation where it's possible to get a good leader better than a system that guarantees bad?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

The problem is no matter how many good leaders you get, you eventually will get the bad as well and how do you deal with it? Quite frankly, there is no system of government that doesn't guarantee an eventual bad leader. At least with a term-limited President you can get rid of the bad short of a revolution.

 

[Stripe]

The problem is no matter how many good leaders you get, you eventually will get the bad as well and how do you deal with it? Quite frankly, there is no system of government that doesn't guarantee an eventual bad leader. At least with a term-limited President you can get rid of the bad short of a revolution.

Bad leaders die.

Bureaucracies don't.

It's better to have the possibility of a good leader than the guarantee of a bad system.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Bad leaders die.

Bureaucracies don't.

It's better to have the possibility of a good leader than the guarantee of a bad system.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You think monarchies prevent bureaucracies? You need to study more history, particularly the Asian empires and their imperial courts.

 

[Stripe]

You think monarchies prevent bureaucracies?

Try responding to what I say, not what you wish I'd said.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Bad leaders die.

Bureaucracies don't.

It's better to have the possibility of a good leader than the guarantee of a bad system.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Try responding to what I say, not what you wish I'd said.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Well, you are right, bureaucracies are hard to kill. I'm just pointing out that monarchy type systems have them too. Over time they tend to grow more powerful than the monarch.

 

[Stripe]

Monarchy type systems have them too. Over time they tend to grow more powerful than the monarch.

Perhaps. But a good king would have a shot at ending it.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Perhaps. But a good king would have a shot at ending it.

So would a good president but in the end, mandarins are like weeds, you sweep through and clean out some of the tallest ones and there a whole new batch waiting to take their place. Then you get a bad king and they have a whole lifetime to further entrench themselves.

 

[Stripe]

So would a good president but in the end, mandarins are like weeds, you sweep through and clean out some of the tallest ones and there a whole new batch waiting to take their place. Then you get a bad king and they have a whole lifetime to further entrench themselves.

I prefer the possibility of good over the guarantee of bad.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk