Shit, it’s more like “why not last term” at this point.
He had two years with a Dem house and Senate, and “looked into” if he was able to fulfill the last round of campaign promises, many of which are on this same list
Like, he hasn’t even looked into this past someone telling him it would help his numbers.
A president’s first term tends to follow a particular pattern: bold action at the very beginning to see what they can get through Congress. They focus on things that will improve their chances to be re-elected. Biden likes to cite the Inflation Reduction Act and it’s policies and some others.
Toward the end of their first term, they start looking forward to our year long election season. There’s less policy implementation and more campaign promises.
Assuming they get re-elected, they can’t be president for a third term so why not go bigger than the beginning of thy first term? Now they can get to work with worrying about the political consequences because there are none for them. And the greater their accomplishments in their second term, the better their party looks.
In short, political incentives differ between terms, with term limits making bolder action more desirable and likely.
So in order to have a to do list to campaign on Biden (or any politician) damns the rest of us, metering out the bare minimum as a treat but stringing us along like an abuser. And all on the hope he wins and wont go back on his word. And if he fails, not only do we not get the progressive promises, but the other president takes more away. Maybe presidents only deserve a single term.
Presidents are very limited in what they can do by design. Most presidential campaign promises rely on the planets to align (i.e.: Congress to actually do it’s job and legislate, which it often doesn’t). Presidential failure is misnomer, imo, because it’s Congress who writes the laws. Biden’s executive orders can be overturned as easily as he overturned Trump’s. At best, the president provides a vision on where he thinks the party should go but Congress does the heavy lifting.
And if he fails, not only do we not get the progressive promises, but the other president takes more away.
That’s how conservatives think too about their president: if he fails, not only do they not get to roll back the administrative state, but then a progressive can tax the more to put more criminals on the street.
The misconception is that this must be a bad thing. What makes it bad is that Republicans are bat shit insane and want control of everything. But if their views were not moderate and they believed in democracy, then it wouldn’t be so bad. Still disappointing though.
This does not remotely comport with actual presidencies. Obama didn’t get more powerful and make bigger goals in his second term. There’s a word for a president who can’t be reelected: “lame duck”.
It’s wild to me that the term “lame duck” has been expanded to include an entire second term. When it was originally coined it was for the period of time between an election in November and the inauguration in January. It’s only in the last 20 years or so that we started calling a second-term president a lame duck, and acting like it’s over at the halfway point.
I’m far from a trump supporter, but these feel like empty promises. Why next term and not this one?
Shit, it’s more like “why not last term” at this point.
He had two years with a Dem house and Senate, and “looked into” if he was able to fulfill the last round of campaign promises, many of which are on this same list
Like, he hasn’t even looked into this past someone telling him it would help his numbers.
Term limits.
A president’s first term tends to follow a particular pattern: bold action at the very beginning to see what they can get through Congress. They focus on things that will improve their chances to be re-elected. Biden likes to cite the Inflation Reduction Act and it’s policies and some others.
Toward the end of their first term, they start looking forward to our year long election season. There’s less policy implementation and more campaign promises.
Assuming they get re-elected, they can’t be president for a third term so why not go bigger than the beginning of thy first term? Now they can get to work with worrying about the political consequences because there are none for them. And the greater their accomplishments in their second term, the better their party looks.
In short, political incentives differ between terms, with term limits making bolder action more desirable and likely.
So in order to have a to do list to campaign on Biden (or any politician) damns the rest of us, metering out the bare minimum as a treat but stringing us along like an abuser. And all on the hope he wins and wont go back on his word. And if he fails, not only do we not get the progressive promises, but the other president takes more away. Maybe presidents only deserve a single term.
In a sense, that’s how this works and always has.
Presidents are very limited in what they can do by design. Most presidential campaign promises rely on the planets to align (i.e.: Congress to actually do it’s job and legislate, which it often doesn’t). Presidential failure is misnomer, imo, because it’s Congress who writes the laws. Biden’s executive orders can be overturned as easily as he overturned Trump’s. At best, the president provides a vision on where he thinks the party should go but Congress does the heavy lifting.
That’s how conservatives think too about their president: if he fails, not only do they not get to roll back the administrative state, but then a progressive can tax the more to put more criminals on the street.
The misconception is that this must be a bad thing. What makes it bad is that Republicans are bat shit insane and want control of everything. But if their views were not moderate and they believed in democracy, then it wouldn’t be so bad. Still disappointing though.
This does not remotely comport with actual presidencies. Obama didn’t get more powerful and make bigger goals in his second term. There’s a word for a president who can’t be reelected: “lame duck”.
It’s wild to me that the term “lame duck” has been expanded to include an entire second term. When it was originally coined it was for the period of time between an election in November and the inauguration in January. It’s only in the last 20 years or so that we started calling a second-term president a lame duck, and acting like it’s over at the halfway point.