Yep. AMERICANS WANT TERM LIMITS. This has always been popular, except among politicians and those who idolize them, or have some other twisted reason to defend them. (Term limits don't concede any long-termer's advantage for one's district or state, to anyone else's necessarily — the others don't get a long-term grip on the positions in question.) One objection someone raised about this long ago was it interfered with the ability to elect who someone wanted. This could partially be addressed simply by banning not more than two terms, but simply banning re-election. It would never be two _consecutive_ terms (in the same office); some language quibbles might be needed to address different seats in the same body (can someone switch House districts or states in the Senate, for example), or impose a ban on switching from a given position to another, but otherwise it's pretty straightforward what can be done.

“As the President speaks with a single voice, so should he be answered by a single voice”
A single voice would be really easy to discredit, humiliate, or dishonor. The media and both parties have been doing that for a long time.

“[T]he defeated candidate for the presidency should have a seat in the House of Representatives, priority in committees and on the floor, and a staff, offices, and other perquisites suitable to his position as the leader of the opposition.”
I see the point in this, but it seems to dork around too much with the Constitution.

In my honest opinion, I'd take Hardin's theory one step further and put in what Jefferson and Washington had already spoken about….. Start from scratch every ten years with a completely new government – a bloodless revolution. No switching offices, no long careers. Just service for no more than two terms. Period. According to Washington, this would keep the parties at bay with little holding power.

Not completely. Far from it. Hence 1980, and 1994.

Some people still believe it's 1968, though, or wish it were still so (or that history changed leftward).

But no more than this site's name. [grin]

I am now convinced that you never really mean what you say, and are simply here to stir up emotions.
You're a lot like Rush Limbaugh in that respect. Who knew?

Either that, or you truly are mentally challenged. Can't give you the benefit of the doubt any more.

(Try not to snicker as you wonder just who, among the Republicans, would be the opposition leader this year. Hell, what Hardin is suggesting would amount in practice this year to doing what the GOP is unable to do for and by themselves! Much more interesting would be speculating who would have been the Dem opposition leader in previous years against Bush, and also Tip O'Neill or Teddy Kennedy versus Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.)

“A foremost requirement of a great power like the United States is strong executive leadership.”

“The major premise of our theory of representation has been: the people must rule. But the people cannot rule and the President has become their substitute. Accordingly, he personifies their political authority. When he speaks from atop his pyramid of 40 million [and more -- DLS] votes, with the bulk of the populace reportedly behind him, he is awe inspiring. His infallibility especially impresses those closest to him whose approval, if not their adulation, convinces him that he is larger than life. And yet all this authority may dissolve if the public turns against him. The people's choice becomes the people's curse.”

“A measure of control over the President can be provided by subjecting him to the criticism of an organized, focused opposition with leadership centered in one person who will be continuously visible and vocal as the alternative to the President. As the Presidency is unified, so should the opposition be unified. As the President speaks with a single voice, so should he be answered by a single voice instead of by a clamor of discordant and little known voices in a legislative body whose genius has been the dispersion of power. If a focused opposition can be achieved, the perception by the public of the opposition (and especially of its leader) will change — and this will change the special relationship between the public and its government.”

“[T]he defeated candidate for the presidency should have a seat in the House of Representatives, priority in committees and on the floor, and a staff, offices, and other perquisites suitable to his position as the leader of the opposition.”

“The same imperatives that practically dictate concentrated executive leadership in modern industrial nations call as well for a unified opposition. If we can create conditions that will encourage the rise of a single leader of the opposition, we can count on the compulsions of the times — greatly assisted by the alert members of the press [chuckle -- DLS] — to confirm his claims to the reins of alternative authority. Moreover the press [chuckle -- DLS] will certify his title to the public at large so that his legitimacy becomes 'graven on the hearts of citizens' as part of the 'real constitution of the state.'

But suppose that the opposition party grows so dissatisfied with the leader that they can no longer follow him? Let the members of his party in Congress remove him. But require them to do so by an act that names his successor. In one stroke, then, the opposition should become visible, unified, stable, responsible, and legitimate.”

“Create conditions which will invite the use of the power of dissolution so that it becomes the normal way of ending one government and creating its successor.”

“These changes should giive voters a new sense of their function and their relationship to government. … [T]hey share in the selection of a government — or, equally important, of an opposition. … [I]t will cause a wholesome change in a basic premise of American political thought. Implicit in the new electoral system is the realization that government is a necessity if people are to dwell in communities.

[T]hese changes will give voters the experience which will give rise to an improved theory of representation. The people will elect a government — and an opposition — and hold them accountable, the one for governing, the other for systematically criticizing government during its term in office.”

“[A]n extremely significant step will be taken to restore political controls on the President without diminishing his essential power. He would be seen as the necessary and legitimate leader for a given period rather than as the personification of the will of the people which has been called 'the voice of God.' Governmental decisions would rest on a majority, a sufficiently legitimizing concept, but one which takes into account the fact that nearly half the people consider the President to be politically fallible — and one which will prevail merely for the good and democratic reason that in a civilized community there must be some way other than violence to settle disputes. Control over the President derived from these propositions will be enhanced by the presence of the leder of the opposition and the alternative government which he heads. The tendency for the instincts, the whims, or the idisyncrasies of Presidents to become expressed in dangerous initiatives should be greatly reduced.”

“[T]he sovereign right of the majority to choose a government which it considers more favorable to its interests would not be denied; but the emphasis would be placed — where it should be if the public is to have a practicable and active share in the awful responsibility of modern government — on the choice of who shall rule.”

(Hardin also discusses the no-confidence vote as well as presidential power of dissolution of Congress.)

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/17100/1/a…

This article from today’s Columbus Dispatch regarding the partisanship of most members of the House Representatives, suggests that moderates, or at least those willing to vote or work with the other party, be they Democrats or Republicans, aren’t going to be resurgent for some time.

Yet the title of the article here only reflects one half of this. Funny to have someone post a article suggesting republican moderate is an oxymoon on a forum called the moderate voice and leave off the other half of the equation in their chosen title…..

I will give the author more credit for a more balanced body, but the headline is right out of far-left field.

Don't forget, the republican party and there “Borrow and Spend” fiscal stupidity has destroyed our economy.

You are out of dates, not Spriasol. We were correct in 1968!

The republicans will continue to self destruct and then a new Second Party will emerge, with the entire spectrum being more liberal forever. Which is naturally correct for a successful America, as is the rest of the world that is surpassing us.

The ground isn't where you believe it is (everyone twenty years old, in 1968), but you have a point.

Look at what's defined (including in psychology literature!) as “normal” behavior for women vs. men, now.

On a more pertinent note — the ground has moved much less than to where you believe it is, but reality is an interesting enough picture. While there are theoretical arguments galore to be made about it, the modern welfare state that evolved in the 1930s (the USA's third revolution) has displaced “pure” laissez-faire, for example. (The “referendum” on the welfare state was held and lost in 1964. Future problems will threaten or even cripple the welfare state and the concept of government as a “service agency” in some ways, but I do not believe it is ever going away.)

I have to confess, I don't know, for I suspect anything that is tried will be squelched. Already, for example, there have been examples of onerous regulations meant to exclude third (other) parties from ballot access.

It's bad, and could be worse. I have read a number of works on constitutional and other forms of change of government, and one work that I found perversely fascinating, but reject if it were attempted, would be to effectively “enshrine' the two-party system (the Duopoly) by presuming (perpetually?) a two-party system, by having a party in charge (“Government”) and the other party (note — “other” implies only two total) formally established and augmented as an Opposition. There was one good thing about it, at a low level — a central Opposition leader was named, who would be the Speaker of the House (and would be the logical person to address the nation other than the President, incidentally conferring legitimacy and respect to what currently is a pathetic practice of the “minority” party giving a complaint speech after the President addresses the nation).

This reformist's book is obscure but an essential description of what he wanted (written about at the same time as his book) can be found here. Note that it is a creepy formalization of the Duopoly, but nevertheless is still arguably better than what we have now. And note also that this view of reform, as with others, came from academia and was driven by concern about the role of the Presidency and of a strong executive, which Nixon illustrated notoriously.

And what the author discusses does have revelence with our Duopoly, and how it might change things right now, thi syear. Imagine reforms such as the author suggests in the work linked to below, in view of what's happening this year with Obama aligning himself with lib Dems and threatening to go too far left, and having in place some formal controls in the hands currently of the otherwise-almost-meaningless Republicans. The Republicans in Congress would have a formal role vs. President Obama (and other Congre-Dems) and actually, if only by default, actually have some powers and reason for being there.

FYI.

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/17100/1/a…

The GOP has a huge problem with activists like Dr. Land, Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist, who influence the tone and mindset of the party- each in very different ways.

How in the world can we overcome the status quo to implement such an endeavor? Our system seems to be more entrenched than most of the systems in the rest of the world. The dems and reps aren't going to freely hand over the reigns, ya know.