A six-year term for the presidency? | ParkRecord.com

A six-year term for the presidency?

John White, Midway

The costs associated with the 2012 presidential campaign causes one to think of other alternatives to negate the efforts of lobbyists and corporate leaders from contributing large sums of money in an effort to meet their personal agendas. Thus, a new paradigm must be offered in order to bring some degree of sanity back to the election process.

Our four-year-term system for the presidency presents many limitations on their effectiveness as leaders. The first year is devoted almost entirely to learning about the idiosyncrasies that make up our legislative branch. The second year is devoted to trying to implement many of the campaign promises. Unfortunately, the primary agenda by the minority party is to get back control of the White House; thus the effectiveness of the president is quite limited. Year three starts the efforts to be reelected. Campaign fund-raising takes time away from issues that are pressing to the country and world affairs. Year four presents an all-out effort of campaigning across the country with endless dinner and speech engagements in order to raise enough money to continue an effective presidential campaign. The result is very little change for the betterment of the American people.

The welfare of the American citizen is basically placed on hold while needs of special-interest groups and campaign fund-raising efforts become the all-consuming time of the president. No wonder that the American public is so dissatisfied with government. In order to get out of this treadmill mentality, we need to create a new paradigm of thinking: a six-year-term presidency without any opportunity of reelection. If it is good enough for senators, then it should be good enough for the presidential office!

What are the benefits of this concept for the American public? First of all, a one-time fund-raising effort as opposed to two, thus saving the citizen from endless hours of rhetoric about promises to improve the wellbeing of citizens. Secondly, the president’s learning curve of how Congress works would be vastly accelerated. The president would not be worried about offending either his or the opposite party, therefore the quality of leadership would not be compromised by political politeness!

Conversely, the party out of power would not have to put all its energy to thwart the efforts of the party in power. It would have an equal opportunity to elect its candidate of choice at the next election; therefore, the party’s efforts could be directed in a positive manner to first meeting the needs of the American citizen. As it is, its efforts seem to be devoted entirely to getting the present elected official out of office, at any cost, and especially to the detriment of the public welfare. No wonder the present public approval rating of Congress is only 9 percent!

A onetime six-year presidential term in office has a lot of merit. The cost to the American taxpayer would be drastically reduced. Time and effort to be reelected would lessen the stress on the presidency. Congress could devote its efforts to enacting laws that directly benefit the majority of citizens. It will take a Herculean effort on the part of the average citizen to influence their governmental representatives to want to change the present president term of office. Could a six-year-term presidency work? You bet it could!