Washington made his own personal decision about retiring after two terms, as did subsequent presidents following his example, but those actually structuring the government and creating its fundamental law specifically rejected term limits as undemocratic.
There is another thing. Washington was making that personal decision in an atmosphere of uncertainty as to the direction that the United States would take. There were those who wanted to offer Washington a crown. Nobody had any experience of running a government with no king. Thus, Washington wanted to squelch any thoughts of hereditary rule. And circumstances did not arise until much later--after THAT issue had been settled--that might have prompted a leader to run for a third term. Lincoln was foreclosed from doing so by assassination. And not until the total fuckup of the rich and their Great Depression did the issue of a third or more terms arise again, with FDR, who had stabilized a failing country, and then, of course, had to deal with the Third Reich and the Japanese Imperium.
FDR was facing the starvation and homelessness of millions of Americans. He met that potential catastrophe not only with creativity and great energy but also with all-important courage and optimism. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." That line was spoken about the Great Depression not about the war. We're talking about a real leader--someone who can turn the very psyches of a people around.
Chavez has had a similar galvanizing impact on Venezuela, which had been broken by "neo-liberalism"--by the kind of looting by the rich and "austerity" for the poor that we're seeing in Europe--an assault by the rich and the banksters that hit Latin America before it hit the rest of the western world. The Bolivarian Revolution, like the New Deal, took this catastrophe on, totally, and, though it is a country-wide transformation, driven by the people as much as it is led by Chavez, Chavez has provided those vital elements of courage and optimism. He is very like FDR.
It has been very clear, all along, that that is how Venezuelans view Chavez. They have been consistent in that view from the beginning. His approval rating has barely slipped below 60%, throughout his tenure, and he has won honest and transparent elections time and again, by big margins.
And Venezuelans have supported Chavez all this time in spite of the non-stop political campaign waged by the Corporate Media against him, including, during the 2002 coup d'etat, the Corporate Media directly participating in the overthrow of the elected government. So it is not as if Venezuelans are unaware of every rightwing "talking point" that the Corporate Media have tried to hammer into their heads, from the charge that he is a "dictator" to the charge that he is "incompetent," and everything in between. Venezuelans consulted their own experience and their own judgement of the Chavez government. They voted as a people to let him run for a third term and then they elected him again.
FDR faced similar circumstances--an often vitriolic anti-FDR, anti-New Deal press, which also called him a "dictator." Neither of these leaders is a "dictator." But both have acted in the interest of the great majority of the people against the interests of the rich few and their overweaning wealth and power, and that is why they got called "dictatorial"-- because they wouldn't be dictated to by the rich!.
I want to note again how the decision about term limits was made here vs. how it was made in Venezuela. Here, it was made by the political class, led by the Republicans, in an amendment to the Constitution that clearly violated the intent of the Founders. It was made in Washington and in state capitols. In Venezuela, the decision was made by a vote of the people in an election system that Jimmy Carter recently called "the best in the world" for transparency and honesty. If this matter had been put to a vote of the people here, it might well have become apparent to them that it was an anti-New Deal move made by the moneyed class. The Democratic leaders would not have been able to defend it, because their real reason for supporting it was their fear of an Eisenhower third term. This was foolish and short-sighted. The menace behind the 22nd amendment might have been perceived if the matter had been put to a popular vote.
The flawed amendment process, in our own Constitution, is an example of the less than democratic views that were current in that era. Many of our Founders didn't trust "the people" on some matters--on amending the Constitution by popular vote, for instance--but, curiously, they DID trust them to be able to judge a leader's performance in office as to keeping that leader in office for as long as they wished. They were quite adamant on this point.
Merely getting elected to a second, or third term, or more, does NOT make you a scofflaw, a "dictator" or anything else. What you are depends on what you do with the mandate you have been given, in additional terms of office. Chavez has never overstepped the law. NEVER! That can't even be said about FDR! (i.e. the Japanese interment camps). Chavez in fact has scrupulously followed the law and has also made his program very clear. Venezuelans have known very well what they were endorsing and what to expect from President Chavez. They are a very democratic people--passionately democratic--and it is an insult to them to presume that they are stupid peasants who don't know what they're doing--who somehow keep electing a "dictator" or an "incompetent."
Finally, I would just say this, about term limits: We have term limits on many offices now in the U.S. including president, and do we have a better democracy? Hm? The upshot of term limits is that corporate/war profiteer lobbyists run our government and write our laws! Term limits are part of a package of corruption and corrupt ideas that are in truth destroying our democracy--along with all those New Deal reforms that our forebears tried to insure for posterity--for us--by voting for FDR four times.
Power can be used for good or for ill. But without power, you can do nothing. Yes, incumbency gives you an edge of power. You have TIME to put regulators in charge of the banksters and make sure they do the job they are supposed to do. You have TIME to find out who's who, and what's what, in the systems that have failed, and TIME to correct them and correct them thoughtfully and well. You have TIME to create entirely new systems, to bring fresh ideas to fruition. You have TIME to change the culture within government and the private economy. You have TIME to appoint better judges, to influence legislative committees, to educate and mentor new and better leaders in every field. You have TIME to create a better democracy, with more equal income and opportunity, and more public participation.
You can abuse this power that TIME gives you, or you can use it to do the will of the people. And it is up to the people to monitor and judge what you have done. It is an arbitrary law that says that, despite how you have used the power that you have been given, the people cannot vote for you again, even if they very much approve of your actions and want you to continue. And it is an arbitrary opinion, from the outside, that says that they shouldn't do this--lift term limits, let their president run again (also, governors)--if, in their judgement, that is a beneficial decision.
In practical terms, Venezuela has universal free health care, universal free education through college, very low unemployment, good wages and benefits, strong labor protections, high economic growth, high public participation and clean elections. They don't have term limits.
In the U.S., on the other hand, education and health care have become unaffordable for many people; we have high unemployment, shit wages, vastly decreasing benefits; an outright assault on labor rights; economic growth is at a standstill; the banksters are out of control; our people are disempowered and demoralized, and our election system is extremely corrupt and riggable. And we have term limits.
I rest my case.
= new reply since forum marked as read
- Congratulations, El Presidente
