Lame duck amendment7/1/2023 ![]() ![]() In domestic politics, Bush maintains powerful weapons such as the veto and executive orders. He may find common ground with the Democratic Congress on such issues as immigration and education. To be successful in domestic policy, the president must move toward the center of the political spectrum and embrace bridge rather than wedge issues. That Clinton could reinvigorate a beleaguered presidency in 1999 should give hope to Bush in 2007. Though the prospects for a successful final 24 months in office look dim, there is still a glimmer of light. With two years left in office, Bush stands at the crossroads of his presidency. The quagmire that is Iraq continues to erode Bush’s professional reputation as well as his public prestige, and thus weakens his bargaining power in Washington. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the lame duck theory is more myth than reality. If the Democratic leadership unleashes the partisan rancor it has harbored since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, presidential initiatives may be dead on arrival.Īs long as Bush’s approval ratings hover below 40%, he will have difficulty using the “bully pulpit” to gather public support for his foreign and domestic policies. For the first time in his presidency, Bush will have to deal with a Democratic majority in Congress. In his last two years in office, lame duck status is the smallest obstacle that George W. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper # 72 that without the opportunity for reelection, the president “has no inclination or resolution to act his part well.” The actions of Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all came under congressional scrutiny during their second terms of office, leading to the impeachment of one president and the resignation of another. The lack of accountability can lead presidents to resort to extra-constitutional means to achieve their agendas. Term limits break the chain of accountability and responsiveness that link the presidency to the people. ![]() Their transgressions are monuments to the arrogance and misuse of power that have pervaded lame duck administrations. Lame duck presidents have historically not suffered from losses of power as much as they have from abuses of power. Lame duck status seems to have little impact on empirically measurable standards of presidential effectiveness or perceptual evaluations of greatness. Bill Clinton finished 24th, ahead of 14 one-term presidents. Post-22nd Amendment presidents fared well, with Reagan ranked eighth and Eisenhower ninth. Two-term presidents dominated the top ten. In the fall of 2000, The Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal asked 78 presidential scholars to rank the presidents. A Republican Senate approved more treaties in Clinton’s last two years as president than a Democratic Senate did in his first two years. Even with impeachment, Clinton’s support scores in Congress rose in his last two years in office. Reagan and Clinton had higher approval ratings in their second term than in their first, and each got a lot accomplished. Despite being lame duck presidents, Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton all saw their support scores in Congress rise in their final year in office. Since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951, only three presidents have served two full terms in office. The parties in control of Congress, the ability of the president to bargain and persuade as well as the occurrence of exogenous events are far better predictors of presidential success than are term limits. ![]() The political pundits who espouse this scenario should take a closer look at history. An irrelevant Bush administration will become an empty shell unable to wield presidential power and shape national policy. Career administrators will hunker down and await the arrival of a new chief executive. Republican candidates, with an eye toward the 2008 elections, will try to distance themselves from the president’s policies. The scenario goes like this: As soon as Bush missteps on Iraq, immigration or tax policy, the media and the Democrats will gleefully pounce and try to stymie his initiatives. Bush’s presidency will become infected with the lame duck syndrome during his last two years in office. Or will the final two years of the Bush Administration fall flat?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |