Hmmm. Say Obama is elected and implements better healthcare. Was progress made?
I'm acknowledging Obamacare as progress. My question is if a President is elected that repeals it so that health care operates before Obamacare, what progress would have been made? In simpler terms, do term limits ensure progress? Or can leaders be regressive?
I know you are. I'm just saying that just because we get bad presidents, doesn't mean term limits are bad or that we don't progress. We might not immediately progress in some specific way, but over time, it ensures progress.
In the long term, maybe repealing Obamacare would be better if it got us a better solution faster. The "What if?" game is silly though.
And what if Reagan had been President for 20 years? It's a big picture argument. The fact Obama won on an accomplishment that had been considered politically toxic for decades is itself a signifier of that progress. What's to debate is whether, over the longer course of time, we're more likely to get where we need to be with potentially prolonged power or with limits on that power. It's my feeling that power is perpetual by nature. The longer it is sustained, the more freedom it is given, the more entrenched the status quo becomes and the harder it is to ultimately affect anything. By checking that power, you not only keep the public more attune and less complacent, you force the parties to have to adapt on issues and not be reliant on a singular individual/personality to carry them for a generation. Democracy has to be reflective of an ever-changing society, not of a particular leader's abilities.
I agree with you. I was more curious as to your thoughts on it.