Are term limits bad for democracy?

Term limits are elemental to a functional democracy. But can they also have ill effects on the public good?

One of the top priorities of a president's first term is to be reelected. During that period, it's critical they remain broadly popular by looking out for the interests of as much of the electorate as possible.

During a second term, all bets are off. Because reelection is not possible, a president can spend that time rewarding friends and allies with little regard for the political ramifications. Being in a position to accumulate vast and sustainable private influence, favor, and wealth can be well worth the cost of grave yet temporary unpopularity.

In principle, presidential terms are good for "capital-D Democracy." But are they good for our democracy?

Immigrants, Sacrifice, and a Brighter Future for our Kids.

For a variety of reasons, I've been thinking quite a bit lately about one of the guiding principles of good parenthood: the hope that our kids have a better life than we do. We all share this hope, don't we? It's only natural. But do we all feel it equally? More precisely, do we all make the same effort?

I don't think so.

Lately, I've had occasion to be around a few working-class foreigners here in Japan. Immigrating from the Philippines, China and elsewhere, they, like immigrants around the world, endure profound hardships. They don't speak the language; they following a strange religion; they look different; they have no family or close friends nearby, and they are often quite poor. Society looks down on them: they are the suspects of crime, depredation, and immorality. They suffer discrimination and ridicule at every turn.

But they endure these profound hardships because they know their kids will benefit by growing up in a country infinitely safer and more prosperous then their own.

Lately, I've begun looking at working-class immigrant families with a sense of awe. I wonder honestly if I have the same mettle. They endure so much and sacrifice so greatly to ensure their kids have a better future. What do I do? I read to my kids before they go to bed. I try to tell them creative stories and listen when they have something to say. I stash away a few dollars for their education. That's about it and it's nothing compared to the Herculean efforts of so many immigrants here in Japan, the US and around the world.

I wonder how different the world would be if all made the same sacrifices; if we all put the same effort into our kids' futures as do so many working-class immigrants.

What do you think?

Secret Legal Memos and the Meaning of "War"

The explosive legal memos of the Bush administration released yesterday justify presidential privileged that supersedes many laws and constitutional protections. They assert that president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants.

The justification for such strident executive privilege is based on the notion that the president, as Commander in Chief, has the right to take any and all action necessary in a time of war to defeat an enemy. The word "war" appears in the memos several times such as in the following example:

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."

I don't mind if my dentist wants to call the campaign against Al Qaeda a war. I don't even mind if the talking heads on cable news continue to go on about the "War on Terror." Everyone knows what they mean.

It should not be forgotten, however, that "war" has a specfic legal meaning in the United States. War can only be declaired by the Congress and, indeed, in a legal state of war, the Commander in Chief is endowed with certain special privleges. But, in a state of warfare or "virtual war," such as we've been in since 9/11, the Commander in Chief has no special legal authority.

I would not expect Joe the dentist or Sean Hannity to be sticklers for the legal definition of war. Fighting is fighting. It's all some form of war. I would, however, expect that the president's legal council makes that distinction. If he or she does not, who will?

The very reason the Founders gave Congress the sole prerogative to declare war was to prevent the president from abusing his authority as Commander in Chief. If the president had the right to declare war at will and in so doing be granted special legal privileges that enabled him to circumvent the constitution, we would have a serious problem on our hands: a dictatorship in all but name.

The secret legal memos just released suggest the administration was operating as if in a legal state of war despite there being no congressional declaration. This to me is one of the most disturbing breaches of the constitution committed by the Bush administration and the key reason why the legal arguments are inherently and absolutely indefensible.

But what do you think?


...

Just in case you missed it.

This is a clip from the president's weekly address where he explains his plan to meet campaign promises with the new budget, despite the objections of special interests. If this clip does not send a chill down your spine, I can't imagine what will.