I think that Eisenhower and Reagan probably would have been tempted to seek a third term, if possible. They both had health problems during their Presidencies, but I could see Eisenhower seeking a third term anyway. He had a difficult time stepping away, which is one reason why he waited so long to give Richard Nixon a solid endorsement in 1960. It wasn’t necessarily a lack of confidence in Nixon’s abilities, but partly because Ike felt that he (Ike) was still the best man for the job.
Reagan, like Clinton, loved being President, too. But when Reagan left office in 1989, he was about two weeks away from his 78th birthday and, according to his official biographer, Edmund Morris, there were signs that he may have been facing the early stages of his Alzheimer’s in the last few weeks of his Administration. Since President Reagan looked relatively healthy and definitely looked fit for his age, it’s difficult for people to realize that he was almost a full eight years older than Eisenhower (70) was when Ike left office. Even if Eisenhower had served another term, Ike still would have been four years younger than Reagan at the end of that third term. I think Reagan’s age and deteriorating health would have prevented him from a third term if it was Constitutionally possible. As closely as his public image was protected by Nancy Reagan, there is no way she would have stood by while he hung on for another term and publicly started to suffer from serious Alzheimer’s symptoms.
An interesting thing is that, if they had the opportunity to run for a third term and their health allowed it, I think Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton all would have been easily elected to another term. I think George W. Bush would have had a much more difficult time with seeking a third term, if possible. However, I don’t think Bush would have run again even if he was Constitutionally eligible. In those last few months of 2008, President Bush looked SO ready to get back to Texas. Even if his chances of being re-elected were positive, I still think he would have chosen retirement instead of a third term.
As for the second part of your question, I think that Truman would have stepped away in 1952, no matter what. All Truman ever wanted to do was remain a U.S. Senator. When he was suggested as a potential Vice Presidential candidate, he was not interested, and when others reminded him that President Franklin D. Roosevelt likely wouldn’t survive the term, Truman declared that he didn’t want to be President either. Of course, he was elected Vice President and as in the case of almost every VP who succeeds to the Presidency, once Truman got to the White House he wanted to be elected to a term in his own right. Still, before Eisenhower declared that he was a Republican, Truman was suggesting that he (Truman) would be happy to step aside and be Eisenhower’s running mate if Ike wanted to run for President as a Democrat. So, Harry Truman did not mind retiring home to Missouri in 1952, and I think he would have done so, no matter what.
LBJ’s case was different. The fact that he was very nearly upset in the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic Primary by Eugene McCarthy really shook President Johnson up and showed that he was vulnerable. If there wasn’t a serious challenge from within his own party — first from McCarthy and then from RFK — LBJ would have stayed in that race in 1968. Despite his withdrawal from the race, deep down LBJ still had a flicker of hope that the Democratic National Convention would be deadlocked, turn to the outgoing LBJ, draft him into the race, nominate him, and he’d be the conquering hero, vanquishing Nixon and bringing the Vietnam War to an end.
LBJ was also a man of contradictions, though. Throughout his life, he always said that he would die young because all of the men in his family died by the time they were 64 or 65. As much as Johnson was addicted to power and craved the love of the American people (something that he never received like JFK did, which “broke his heart” according to Richard Nixon), he was also deeply worried that another four years in the White House would kill him. Worse yet, he would suffer an incapacitating stroke like Woodrow Wilson. LBJ often had a nightmare where he fell ill like Wilson and was an invalid — a shell of a once-powerful man bedridden or feebly being rolled through the White House in a wheelchair. It was an macabre thing to think about, but it was something that frequently haunted President Johnson, especially because he had suffered a near-fatal massive heart attack in 1955 when he was Senate Majority Leader. The confident, arrogant, impetuous, strong-willed LBJ wanted to take on Nixon and serve four more years in the White House. The sensitive, insecure, depressed LBJ considered resigning, didn’t think he’d live through the next term (1969-1973), and often had to receive a pep talk from Lady Bird to get his act together and go to work. So, with LBJ, it would actually depend on which LBJ you got on decision day when it comes to whether he would have sought a third term if not for the disastrous results of the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic Primary.
By the way, Lyndon Johnson died on January 22, 1973. If he had served a third term, it would have ended on January 20, 1973, just two days prior to the day that he actually died.
I don’t like the idea of term limits at all, but if we’re going to have term limits for the Presidency (which, of course, we do), then I think the House and Senate should have term limits, as well. I don’t like the fact that term limits are imposed on the President if Senators and Representatives can keep getting themselves elected (and basically wage a continuous campaign for their seat).
I want to see a balance there, but I’d much rather see the 22nd Amendment abrogated so that Presidents can serve more than two terms. The Founders didn’t place anything in the Constitution about term limits. While every President for 150 years followed George Washington’s two-term tradition, it was just that — a tradition. The 22nd Amendment was a knee-jerk reaction 65 years ago due to FDR being elected to four terms and the Democrats having what ended up being a 20-year hold on the White House.
I think the best argument against term limits is the fact that Bill Clinton is only 66 years old, yet he’s been relegated to the sideline for what will soon be 12 years. If not for the 22nd Amendment, Clinton could still be President today. and there are not too many people on either side of the aisle who weren’t better off during the Clinton years and wouldn’t feel confident with him at the helm
As you can see, I am asked frequently about term limits on the President of the United States. So, instead of answering this questions a bunch of times, I’ll do it once. Thanks to nobedofroses, hallchristopher, musicesquire, davetrains, untoldhistory, resistiance, and anybody else who has asked a similar question.
I really dislike the idea of term limits for the President. I think the 22nd Amendment, which prevents somebody from being elected to more than two terms as President was a knee-jerk reaction to the long hold that FDR and the Democratic Party had on the White House during the 1930s and 1940s. I think the restriction on Presidential terms is ridiculous and harmful to the Presidency. It was explicitly not encoded within the Constitution by the Founding Fathers and I believe that was for the same reasons that the Founders didn’t put term limits on House members, Senators, or Supreme Court Justices. The two-term limit is a handicap which shackles the President of the United States into being a lame duck who is always either playing defense by not taking political risks or being overprotective about his political capital for at least half of his Presidency — (during the run-up to mid-term Congressional elections and for 18 months prior to his own re-election).
As I’ve previously written on this subject:
There have only been term limits on the Presidency for less than 60 years. The two-term precedent set by George Washington was a tradition, not anything set in the Constitution. I believe that the Founders very specifically kept from limiting the Presidency because they felt that if there is someone uniquely suited for that office — like George Washington — we should do our best to keep him in that office for as long as possible in order to better the country.
There is no proof that term limits are an effective manner to keep political power fresh and accessible. I’m going to use California as an example because that’s where I lived for my entire life. The term limits on members of the Assembly and State Senate have created a system where the Assembly is a turnstile of nobodies who become a name and then become a State Senator and, just like that, are termed out of office. This creates a spectacularly terrible legislature.
We (and I’m guilty too) grumble about politicians who become entrenched in Washington and hold on to power for too long. In a lot of cases, that can be very obvious — Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd are two examples. But it is also very good to have wise voices and experienced leaders in Congress — Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole are two examples.
There are no term limits for members of the House of Representatives. There are no term limits for Senators. There are no term limits for Supreme Court Justices. There should be no term limits for Presidents and Vice Presidents.
Another reader, garyfrakingoak, sent me this question about term limits:
I have previously endorsed the idea of the one, 6-year term, but even that is not ideal. I think a 6-year term is better because it gives the President more time to grow into his position, understand his role, and learn how to use the office correctly. However, that doesn’t remove the lame duck status for large chunks of time during the President’s Administration. In fact, a 6-year term would include TWO Congressional elections (in Years Two and Four of the Presidency) and that might even be worse than one midterm election during a 4-year term.
In another answer, I noted that:
If the public must have term limits placed on their Presidents, I think it should be two six-year terms. Every President and every Presidency evolves, just like the institution of the Presidency itself is always evolving. A President should have more time to learn how to use the office before he has to worry about holding on to it or giving it up.
In my ideal American government, there would be no term limits on the Presidency. To me, it just does not make sense that we’ve placed term limits on the Executive branch but not any of the other branches of government. Plus, it’s a recent development, not something that was anything more than a tradition for the majority of our nation’s life. Would it result in tyranny? I don’t think so. The people of this country have the power to vote out their President. It’s happened many times. With the fatigue that Americans have with their leaders, I doubt that many Presidents would be given more than two terms anyway. If we’re capable enough to vote a President in, we are capable enough to vote them out. And if no limits means that someone might become entrenched in office, lethargic, and potentially corrupt, well, we’ve already got that issue and it’s called the United States Congress.
I’m not a fan of term limits on any office at any level of government.
Truman did not seriously consider running for President in 1952. He barely won the 1948 election, stunning his Republican opponent Thomas Dewey (“Dewey Defeats Truman”). By the time the 1952 election cycle began, Truman was historically unpopular and knew it was time to get out. If he had chosen to, he could have run again — the 22nd Amendment applied to Presidents beginning with Eisenhower.
In 1952, Robert Taft was the front-runner for the Republican nomination until Dwight Eisenhower threw his hat into the ring. Eisenhower’s entry moved the Republicans towards the middle (Taft was very conservative) and destroyed Taft’s chances of ever becoming President (he died of cancer in 1953). When Truman decided not to run, the Democratic Party was basically turned over to Adlai Stevenson who ended up being the Democratic Presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956. Eisenhower beat Stevenson easily both times.
It’s not a dumb question at all. Presidential succession is very confusing, particularly with the changes put in place by the 22nd Amendment.
The rule is that no one can be elected President more than once, which limits a President to two terms. In addition, someone who assumes the Presidency in case of death, incapacitation, removal from office, or resignation can’t be elected to more than one term if they serve more than two years of the unexpired term they assumed.
So, yes, LBJ could have ran for re-election in 1968 because he served less than two years of JFK’s term following the assassination. LBJ would have been prohibited from running in 1972 if he had ran in 1968.
As for the hypothetical McCain/Palin situation, Palin would have served more than two years of McCain’s term if McCain died a week after inauguration, as you suggested. So, Palin would have been eligible for re-election in 2012, but not in 2016. It’s similar to Gerald Ford. Ford served more than two years of what would have been Nixon’s second term, so if he had won re-election in 1976, he would have been barred from running again in 1980.
However, people who have served one term as President and lost their bid for re-election are not ineligible to run for the White House again. The Constitution only bars those who win two elections as President, not run in two elections. For example, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush are technically still eligible to run for President.
The biggest blurry area, in my opinion, is in regards to whether someone who has served two terms as President is eligible to run for the Vice Presidency. Bill Clinton, for example, won two elections as President. The Constitution is not completely clear about whether or not he could be elected Vice President. Clinton himself believes that he is ineligible to the Vice Presidency because the Constitution states that the Vice President can’t be someone who is ineligible for the Presidency. It can be easily interpreted that an example like Clinton is ineligible for the Vice Presidency because he is Constitutionally ineligible to the Presidency due to his two terms in office. It’s a debatable question, though.
I think the Presidency needs to shift from it’s current status as a symbol for everything into becoming a true force of change for specific things. The Presidency is an institution which constantly evolves and reshapes itself. The problem lately is that the Presidency is more about the person holding on to the office than what the office can do if the right person ends up in that position.
Now, I understand this sounds strange considering nobody is more fascinated than the individuals who have been President than I am. I love learning about the individuals, their personalities, their strengths, their weaknesses, their attributes, their faults, their triumphs and their tragedies.
This is great for history. History is about people, so it’s only natural that we focus on the individuals who have held the office of President of the United States. It’s gives us faces and names and voices and writings which help define not only their office, but the era of history in which each of these Presidents have served.
What is dangerous about it is that the President of the United States is engaged in an eternal campaign. A candidate seeks their party’s nomination for the Presidency with a campaign. If they win their nomination, they battle in a general election campaign with the opposing party’s nominee. If elected, the President-elect finds himself in another campaign: the transition prior to Inauguration Day. This is a campaign because the media and the people play guessing games about Cabinet appointments, search for scandals and missteps, and spend hours and hours vetting the appointments that the President-elect is making.
Inauguration Day comes and the new President finds himself campaigning against his predecessors to see what he can accomplish in his First 100 Days. The First 100 Days is not a barometer for Presidential success provided for in the Constitution by the Founders. The First 100 Days is an arbitrary benchmark used by the media to gauge whether or not the new President measures up to other Presidents and their First 100 Days.
Finally, there is some calm and the President can truly set out to work. But not for long. Because by the time the one year anniversary of the President’s inauguration comes around, he finds himself in another campaign. This campaign is the Congressional midterm elections. The President is not a candidate for office during Congressional midterm elections, but invariably the midterm elections are a referendum on the President’s support with the voters of the United States. It is in the President’s best interest to come out of the midterm elections unscathed because it reflects well on his own chances for re-election. It is also a necessity for the President’s party to hold their own and either gain seats in Congress during the midterm elections or hold steady. Anything other than that is a failure, a virtual no-confidence vote and a possible harbinger of electoral difficulties. Therefore, the President spends a lot of his time raising money for his party’s candidates, stumping for them in their states and districts, and focusing on politics rather than policy.
Following the midterm elections and the beginning of the new Congressional session, the President finds himself in the only other stretch of his Presidency’s first term that is relatively uninterrupted by campaigning or fundraising. A President uses this time to spend political capital that he can spare or find ways to obtain political capital that he may expend in his own re-election campaign.
Presidential campaigns begin earlier-and-earlier and continue to become more-and-more expensive. When the Presidential campaign gets underway, the President plays a type of zone defense. Nothing too risky, nothing too unpopular, nothing unprotected. From whenever the Presidential campaign begins until Election Day, the President usually does nothing to rock the boat. Doing something wrong during a Presidential campaign — especially if one candidate is the incumbent President — is worse than doing nothing at all. So, throughout the Presidential campaign, incumbent Presidents often do nothing at all.
And then, if the President is re-elected, it all begins again.
Prior to his second inauguration, he reshapes his Administration. Cabinet members and top aides leave and are replaced and, hopefully, refreshed. The media covers this much like it covered the President-elect’s transition four years earlier. Who is being named to that position? What are they hiding? Why is so-and-so leaving? Is the President losing his base?
The second inauguration rolls around and the campaign now is to top the first inaugural address, to announce something important, and, to kick off the final campaign, one which lasts for the remainder of their lives — the campaign to solidify and present a shining legacy.
Throughout the second term, the President looks to the past and attempts to craft his accomplishments into something that he can stand on in the future. Maybe he finally takes some risks — five or six years into his Presidency; but maybe he continues to be careful.
Before you know it, it’s time for Congressional midterm elections again. The President again campaigns and raises money around the country. As those midterm elections are completed, there is one more stretch of time where the President has to look nowhere else but his personal agenda and work to accomplish things for several months before the campaign to replace him begins.
Now, the President is unable to run for another office. He doesn’t need to worry about Congressional elections because he won’t be in office to deal with him. The campaigning is over, right? Wrong. The campaign begins to choose his successor. The President’s best hope for a strong legacy is to be succeeded by someone he hand-picked, or someone from his political party. Turning the White House over to the opposition means losing that ability to write your own legacy.
No matter what, though, during that long campaign to find a new President, one thing is certain. The incumbent, in office for 6-7 years, is now a lame-duck. At this point, he probably wants to spend all of his political capital. He wants to take big swings at every fastball and try to hit a home run. Yet, he can’t. He’s a lame-duck. His time is past and he’s simply house-sitting for the next guy. He can focus on his legacy, but his final 18 months to 2 years of his Presidency is absent of any serious influence unless there is a major crisis.
That’s the most dangerous aspect of the modern Presidency: the constant campaign. It shackles a President politically and guts at least three years of a two-term Administration because the President has to play it safe for midterm elections, his own re-election, and the election of his successor/construction of his legacy.
What could change that? Nothing short of repealing the 22nd Amendment’s restriction on allowing a President to serve more than two terms. The President needs freedom. The Presidency needs to be a position that you can’t simply run the clock out on. The Presidency needs to be more formidable than it has become over the last two decades. You can’t take the politics out of the Presidency, but the President himself can limit his campaigning and focus on doing the job he was elected to do. I’m tired of seeing Presidents campaigning for some unknown, small district candidate for the United States House of Representatives simply because that small district is in a swing state full of potential Electoral College gold. I want my President solving problems instead of raising money all over the country for Congressional and Senatorial campaign committees. My biggest worry is that the Presidency will eventually end up being a job where things only get done in the First 100 Days and, after that, it’s truly a constant campaign where the President is either running for something, running away from something, or staying out of trouble in order to help someone else who is running for an office.
We’ll have to look at it two ways, as you mentioned. First of all, there was no restriction on running for a third term until the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951, and the first President actually affected by the 22nd Amendment was Dwight Eisenhower. Grandfathering meant Truman wouldn’t have been affected by the restriction and could have ran for as many terms as he chose.
Secondly, we’re thinking about what would have transpired had Washington not set the two-term precedent and if none of the Presidents adhered to Washington’s tradition (only a few ever considering breaking the tradition).
With that said, here’s my answer, with some qualifications:
Andrew Jackson would have ran for a third term if he had been younger, and he absolutely would have been elected again. When Jackson left office in 1837, he was nearly 70 years old and he very nearly resigned during his second term because of his poor health. If Jackson had won the 1824 election (and, to be honest, he kind of did) instead of John Quincy Adams, I think he would have served from 1825-1837 if his health had allowed it.
A President would have to be elected to a second term to seek a third term, so we’ll skip from Jackson to Lincoln. Lincoln was assassinated at the very beginning of his second term, so we’ll never know what would have happened if he had served eight years instead of four years and a month.
Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in 1880. He had left office in 1877 and turned things over to Rutherford B. Hayes, but Hayes pledged to serve only one term when he made the compromise with Democrats which swung the 1876 election from Samuel J. Tilden to Hayes. At the 1880 Republican National Convention, there was quite a bit of support for a third term for Grant and he actually led on the first 35 ballots of voting for the nominee. Grant desperately wanted to be renominated, but things fell apart and James Garfield beat Grant for the nomination by just 66 votes. Grant would have been the first President nominated for a third term if it weren’t for those 66 votes.
Theodore Roosevelt obviously attempted to run for a third term in 1912 after he had pledged to not run again in 1908. TR immediately regretted his decision not to seek a third term in 1908 and hand over the White House to William Howard Taft. TR was not even 50 years old when he left office and very few people loved being President as much as Roosevelt did. Roosevelt was considering running for President in 1920, but he died at the beginning of 1919. If he had run in 1920, Roosevelt — just 60 years old at the time — almost certainly would have been elected to a third term.
Woodrow Wilson also wanted to run for a third term in 1920. Unfortunately for Wilson, he had been severely incapacitated by a stroke in 1919 and probably should have been forced to resign due to his health instead of lingering like a shadow until he turned the White House over to Warren Harding in 1921. Even if he had been healthy, it’s unlikely that Wilson’s Democratic Party would have wanted to renominate the unpopular Wilson for a third term in 1920.
Once the 22nd Amendment came into play, it became impossible for Presidents after Eisenhower to seek a third term, but in my opinion, ALL of the Presidents since the 1950’s who had won a second term would have sought a third term, if possible. Power is difficult to relinquish and the Presidency is the most powerful position in the world. All of the Presidents were ambitious, ego-driven politicians and none of them willingly wanted to leave office.
Dwight Eisenhower was the first President affected by the 22nd Amendment’s restrictions and, despite being 70 years old in 1960, he personally felt that he was a better candidate for the Republicans than anyone else, especially the eventual nominee (and his own Vice President) Richard Nixon.
Ronald Reagan was even older than Eisenhower at the end of his second term — almost 78 years old and in questionable health — but Reagan also made it clear that he wished he could have run for a third term. Eisenhower’s chances in 1960 would have been dicey; Reagan almost certainly would have been re-elected.
Bill Clinton, as you mentioned, was just 54 years old when he left office in 2001. I think Clinton would have had a tough time running for a third term in 2000, but if he had retired and come back in 2004 to challenge George W. Bush, I think Clinton would have definitely been elected to a third term. The nation approved of Clinton’s job in 2000, but I think most Americans needed a break from him. By 2004, his return would have been a relief to most voters, especially with lackluster competition against Bush like John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, and Wesley Clark.
As for George W. Bush himself, I do think Bush would have sought a third term if Constitutionally eligible. I don’t think he would have beaten any Democratic nominee, however. In fact, to name-check William Jennings Bryan again, I think the Democrats could have dug him up in 2004 and he would have finally won a Presidential election if they had campaigned him against Bush.
Also, in case anyone was wondering, I think the restriction on Presidential terms is ridiculous and harmful to the Presidency. It was explicitly not encoded within the Constitution by the Founding Fathers and I believe that was for the same reasons that the Founders didn’t put term limits on House members, Senators, or Supreme Court Justices. The two-term limit is a handicap which shackles the President of the United States into being a lame duck who is always either playing defense by not taking political risks or being overprotective about his political capital for at least half of his Presidency — (during the run-up to mid-term Congressional elections and for 18 months prior to his own re-election). I support the elimination of Presidential term limits (remember, they only were instituted within the past 60 years) or the creation of a single, six-year Presidential term if there has to be limits.