Over the last century, American liberals have often supported a strong executive branch while conservatives have usually fought against giving additional power to the White House.
Liberals cheered as Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ grabbed more power. When Republicans took the White House, too often conservatives turned a blind eye as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush started adding more responsibilities under the executive power umbrella. Now with Barack Obama in the White House, the left, which was only too happy to condemn Bush for overstepping his authority a decade ago, is now cheering the rise of presidential power while conservatives are back to opposing more power in the executive branch.
If the Republicans take the White House next year, conservatives will, in all likelihood, swing back to supporting a stronger executive branch. But there is a dark-horse Republican presidential hopeful who is floating an idea which should be considered in this age of powerful but often inept presidents like Bush and Obama.
One of the cornerstones of former IRS Commissioner Mark Eversons dark-horse bid for the Republican presidential nomination is a pledge to serve a single term in the White House and amending the Constitution on how long presidents stay in office.
I will serve only one four-year term in office and seek a constitutional amendment to limit future presidents to a single five- or six-year mandate, Everson insists. By the third year of an administration, appointees up and down the line are increasingly focused on the approaching election. The country deserves a leader whose decision-making is based solely on the national interest and in no way compromised by considerations tied to re-election politics.
Everson will, of course, be hard-pressed to become a major factor in the presidential race, let alone sit in the Oval Office. But his idea for a single term president warrants some consideration, especially as the rise of presidential power usually leads to an expanding federal government
History shows presidents run out of steam in their second terms. Obama is proof of that, but other recent commanders in chief have stumbled badly in their final years in office. Bush clearly ran out of gas in 2006 as the size of the federal government increased and Americans turned against the war in Iraq. In 1997, before news of the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, Bill Clinton pushed for fast-track authority on trade deals but failed to get it through Congress despite his convincing win over Bob Dole for a second term the year before. Reagan was put on the defensive over Iran-Contra while Nixon resigned over Watergate in order to avoid being removed from office.
Earlier presidents fared no better. In his final years in office, George Washington lost much of his luster with Jays Treaty while Thomas Jefferson ran afoul when he pushed the Embargo Act of 1807. Even Franklin Roosevelt, who went on to win elections for a third and fourth term, clearly hit a wall in his second term with his failure to pack the Supreme Court, his attempt to purge conservative Democrats in the 1938 elections and an economic downturn -- the Roosevelt recession -- in 1937-38.
Too many historians have simply accepted that presidents need to serve two full terms to be effective and thats simply not the case. There have been some presidents who have excelled despite pledging not to seek two terms. During his one term in the 1840s, James K. Polk managed the settlement of the Oregon territory and presided over the War with Mexico which led to the purchase of the Southwest. When Polk left the White House in 1849, the nation had expanded to the Pacific.
Despite pledging to serve a single term, Polk was often preoccupied with the 1848 presidential race, undermining Whig Gen. Zachary Taylors command in Mexico and often fending off his ambitious Secretary of State James Buchanan (who pledged to serve a single term but proved a disaster). But presidents who only plan to serve one term can often show political courage by breaking with their party when needed. Rutherford B. Hayes planned to serve a single term in the latter half of the 1870s and he showed no problem taking on his fellow Republicans, including the powerful New York Sen. Roscoe Conkling.
Even in the 20th century, the high water marks of both liberalism and conservatism in the White House came under presidents who served just over five years: Calvin Coolidge, who made no effort to win a second full term in 1928, and Lyndon Johnson, whose bid for a second full term was halted in 1968.
Everson has seen firsthand that presidents are far more effective at the start of their time in the Oval Office than when they leave it. Under Reagan, Everson rose to become deputy commissioner of INS under Attorney General Ed Meese. In George W. Bushs administration, Everson was deputy director for management of OMB before heading the IRS.
Neil Cavuto at Fox News has been impressed with Everson so far, calling him a serious guy addressing serious issues. Eversons call for tax reform will generate most of the headlines and his support of immigration reform (even agreeing that its amnesty) will get most of the jeers but his idea for a one-term president should get some attention for those who think the federal government has spiraled out of control. Eversons prescription could help limit the damage from executive empire builders like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Bush and Obama.
Reach Kevin Derby at kderby@sunshinestatenews.com or follow him on Twitter: @KevinDerbySSN
