@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
That's a good point, and I'd add that often there are some things that are obviously right but politically risky that tend to only happen in second terms (e.g. pressuring Israel for peace).
Well, Jimmy Carter pressured Israel for peace and he never even had a second term, so history doesn't really support that theory. The fact is that presidents take very few risks even if they're term-limited and in their final terms. Most of the riskiest behavior, in fact, takes place in presidents'
first terms. Presidents lose a significant amount of authority in their second terms, as they are viewed as lame ducks almost as soon as they're re-elected. A president is much more likely to get his programs passed in his first term, while he still has people who are invested in his political future. For example, compare GWBush's Medicare prescription drug bill in his first term with his abortive attempt to reform Social Security in his second.
So, if you want to encourage presidents to take chances, then the obvious solution is to limit them to
one term in office, not two.