ToC Round One: The Twenty-Second Amendment should be Repealed

As expected, JBlake is bringing out all the stops. It is certainly a pleasure to debate him no matter the outcome. ====== DEFENSE OF MY ARGUMENTS ====== I will be using different headers to delineate my arguments, since I JBlake's interpretation does not wholly and accurately reflect my approach. I generally do not like to break my argument into separate modules, but in the interest of consistency and readability, I will acquiesce. At any rate, I will address all of JBlake's objections. 1. History affirms the 22nd amendment JBlake called this argument "indicative of democracy." Indeed, I do content that democracy, as established in the U.S., realized the 22nd amendment in a just and fair manner. His contention, however, is that the common people were left out of the equation. Recall that JBlake pointed out in round one that "we are not a democracy, but we operate under democratic principles." The U.S. is a republic, a special hierarchy of political representatives at the local, state, and federal level. The people elect their state and federal leaders, so the voice of the states ideally represent the voice of the people. So why does JBlake say it isn't so? If JBlake is correct and the will of the states did not reflect the will of the people in 1951, then the people must not have correctly chosen their leaders and/or representatives. Why then should we trust the people to correctly elect the U.S. President? JBlake cannot have it both ways. If he insists the people are capable of choosing the president without limits, then he must concede that the people were accurately represented during the ratification process. Of course, that's only half of JBlake's objection. He furthermore contends that past generations' decisions should not bind the current generation. Not only do I agree, I feel compelled to point out that I already anticipated this objection in my first round when I said, "it might be argued that times have changes [sic] and what was good for us then is now unhealthy." Indeed, the issue of term limits should not be ignored simply because the past already decided. However, history does give insight into the issues involved in this decision, which brings me to my second contention. 2. Term limits prevent indefinite reign JBlake labeled this "Jefferson and fixed terms." It was not my intention to convey that Jefferson was endorsing presidential term limits. My point was that the concern of presidents gaining too much power by maintaining indefinite rule goes all the way back to the founding fathers. The problem does not magically go away simply because this generation proclaims itself to be equipped well enough to do away with the 22nd amendment. It's irrational to think that it is not likely to be a problem today, especially when you also consider my next two contentions. 3. The people cannot be trusted to make the better choice JBlake accuses me of distrusting the people's ability to choose a president, and indeed I do. This was precisely why I brought up the incumbency advantage, but there are plenty of reasons to support my position. People rarely vote for a political candidate based solely on capability like my opponent might have us believe. They vote according to religious convictions, party loyalty, misinformation, popularity, and so on. David Hume said reason is "the slave of passions, and can pretend to no other office than to serve and obey them." Incumbent's have access to greater media channels, funding, and world events. FDR, the catalyst for the amendment, was able to acquire his forth term primarily for being a wartime president. There is no consistent rationale for believing that the people are capable of voting for the "better" president. Consider just some of the reasons Bush was reelected: http://news.bbc.co.uk... 4. Tyranny of the majority The only valid objection to my previous contention is that the people ought to be permitted to choose their president even if they are not equipped to choose without bias. This brings me to my final contention, which JBlake did not address. Term limits naturally limit the popular majority from keeping their preferred leader in a position of power. After two terms, the popular president must step down, giving other public opinions a chance to be represented on an executive level. ====== REBUTTALS ====== 1. Counter to Democratic Principles I'm afraid JBlake did not fully comprehend my use of the term "voice" in my rebuttal here. Every elected official represents a majority voice: that is, the opinions and desires of their majority constituents. A U.S. Representative represents the majority voice of his/her district, which is counter-balanced by opposing voices from other districts. On the contrary, the U.S. President represents a single national majority voice. His advisors, cabinet, and administration--all ultimately determined by his own choosing--do not necessarily represent opposing public voices. For this reason, it is good that a president step down after two terms, allowing a new voice to be represented. 2. Harmful Effects JBlake rightly points out how irrational it is to think that all presidents consider the welfare of their party over and above their self interests or the will of the people. That being the case, it is equally irrational to think that all presidents "give up" during their second term due to lack of motivation. JBlake cannot have it both ways. If my objection is irrational, then so is this contention to begin with. 3. Long Term Planning We seem to agree on this point. ====== CONCLUSION ====== On the surface, the 22nd amendment seems to hinder the democratic process. However, as I have attempted to show, completely unleashing the people's will fails to consider the reality of human nature. People in power will attempt to stay in power, and most voters are not well equipped enough to prevent power abuse. The 22nd amendment is a reasonable solution. It certainly steps on a few toes, but it by no means cuts people off at the knees. People still have their say. They are merely asked to vote for fresh blood after eight years of the same. I firmly resolve that the 22nd amendment should not be repealed.