Asymmetrical Information

FDR had a good fourth term?

Um, except for that nasty 'dying' thing...

The Monroe Doctrine came during its author's second term.

Is there a link to the business cycle?

Just a guess, but I seem to remember a discussion one time that pointed out an industrial/business cycle of about 7 years. Someone who pays more attention might be better able to comment on it.
If it is about seven years, you could see where that might have some effect on public oppinion. A president reelected by riding positive economic results would see a decline in their second term.
I think the impact on Bush is somewhat neutral this time due to WoT concerns. The economy took a hit under his watch, which is negative, but seems to be recovered and heading in the right direction. Basicly, either side can spin as they would like.
If Bush is reelected, even if the economy keeps growing, I could see a tough second term. I think people are more informed than they have ever been before on all things political and the populace has begun some activism. Many people, me included, are giving this administration another chance not because of domestic issues, but because of a belief in the WoT and foreign policy. I think many of us will make it known that we want serious change on other issues like fiscal responsibillity or we will be forced to make changes. That could cause some serious tensions if the Republicans don't react to those who rallied to support.

How many of those Presidents had to work with a Congress controlled by the opposite party?

I'd look it up but I'm suffering election fatigue and Tequila withdrawal right now.

But are second terms any worse than single terms? Think about why Bush 41, Carter, LBJ, and Hoover weren't re-elected. (LBJ was so beaten down by his elected term of office that he didn't even run for re-election.) My take is this: There's nothing especially bad (or good) about second terms. Stuff happens all the time, but sometimes it lets up a bit. When it does, presidents tend to get re-elected.

Hmm... I'd argue that Reagan had a pretty good second term. Better, in fact, than his first, Iran-Contra notwithstanding.

They get old. Constitutionally, no President can start a proper second term before the age of 39. Nuff said...

Political parties are not monolithic.

When a president is in his first term, the various splinters of his party have a strong incentive to stay with the party line. This tends to mean that they support their President's initiatives. If they do so, they'll have the support of the President's support team -- the big dog of electoral politics -- when the next election(s) roll around.

A second-term president has no such unifying power over his own party, because he won't be running for re-election. The splinters of the party start going off on their own, including but not limited to beginning the process of deciding who the next nominee will be. Without that support, the President is less likely to be successful because his initiatives won't have as much power behind them.

Successful second terms happen when the overall mood of the country is in line with the President's policies, and his initiatives are therefore good politics for most of the party splinters (i.e. tend to get them re-elected.) Examples include FDR, Eisenhower, and Reagan. They can also come when the President chooses to be President Log, though I can't think of an example right off hand -- perhaps Jefferson.

Disastrous second terms happen when the President gets a short-timer attitude; that is, he decides that since he isn't going to be re-elected anyway the sky's the limit for what he can do. The shining example of that one, at least in recent times, is Richard Nixon, of course.

Plausible?

Regards,
Ric Locke

Great. You acknowledge that Bush's first term has been ... problematic. Your dad argues that Presidents usually have worse second terms than first terms, and you buy the argument. And yet, you've affirmatively come out for Bush.

Welcome to Cognitive Dissonance, population...well, I guess we'll have to wait and see how many Bush voters there were in the blue superstates.

FRD can really only be judged on the first two terms. It is unlikely that he would have been reelected on his domestic record,had Hitler deferred his invasion of Poland until 1941( as some of his generals advocated). The court-packing effort and the recession that came during that second term, as well as the general reluctance to grant additional terms, would have worked against him, had he tried for the third term outside a war time circumstance.

I leave to others a judgement about Mr. Monroe. But the Monroe Doctrine does not strike me as a major foreign policy initiative that had much impact in its own time,as it was in reality to be enforced by the British. His treaty with the Russians had more impact, setting as it did the 54-40 limit that later became the rallying cry of the Polk administration. There was very little domestic success, with substantial regional stresses emerging over both slavery and tariff policy. The Era of Good Feeling was followed by an era of little substantial achievemnt in the second term.

It should be noted that he, like our present President, did organize a ' foreign invasion', in this case Florida, which resulted in the acquisition from Spain of God's waiting room for all American and Canadian retirees.

SCMTim, there is nothing inconsistent in Megan's position -- it's clear that, even if she believes that Bush's first term had problems and his second is likely to have more, she thinks that a Kerry term is likely to be worse. There is no dissonance here, cognitive or otherwise.

It could be argued that the top-notch people that 1) manage to get the candidate in office originally, 2) shepherd that candidate through three years or so of office and then 3) re-elect that President are so tired from those four years that they end up resigning after "doing their part." The people who come after them probably aren't as good (law of averages and all of that.)

Re the next four years...

The economy figures to pick up steam. That will be good for whomever.

If Bush wins then the quality of his second term will depend mostly on how things turn out in Iraq, etc., which in all fairness *nobody will really know* for another two or three years, despite all the claims of certaintly being made both ways now. Otherwise, more of the same.

If Kerry wins he could have a tough *first* term. Nobody's voting *for* him, all his support is anti-Bush. He's avoided taking hard positive stands on anything -- trade, what he'll actually do in Iraq, SS and Medicare -- because it would just divide his own support. He's letting all the various anti-Bushers dream that he'll do whatever they want.

But he won't be able to do that any more after being elected. And then he'll likely be dealing with a hostile Republican Congress foiling him at every turn, without Clinton's charm and persuasiveness, and without any of the personal support and loyalty that Clinton had in his second term from many Democrats.

Moreover, expect the press to do a "Clinton turn" on him.

I.e, first the mainstream press does its best to see that its guy gets in (which it's done as never before with Kerry, reportedly
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041101-122452-4025r)... THEN, after he is, it absolves its concscience by turning on him and reporting all the dirt it didn't report before. Remember how the Times started bashing Clinton on Whitewater and all his character issues *after* he was elected?

E.g., If it turns out that Kerry *really was* rejected from Harvard law because he had a dishonorable discharge so the admissions committtee thought he wouldn't be admitted to the bar, as reported in the NY Sun today...
http://www.nysun.com/article/4040
... and that Kerry's been lying all along to cover this up so he can be can get elected Commander in Chief with a hidden record of a dishonorable, and the press has given him a free ride on it to date, then if he gets elected expect the press to start making amends *for that* in the new year.

Whatever, Kerry's press honeymoon will soon be over, they'll be getting critical of him instead of marketing him. With little personal support, less charm, and a hostile Congress, I'd expect Kerry I to be a rougher ride than Clinton II. And Clinton got himself impeached during Clinton II.

And with tradesports saying Bush II still costs 55 in what looks to me like a toss-up, I'm putting my $2 down that there'll be a Kerry I. So we'll see!

From a libertarian perspective, might it be a good thing to have a president who isn't particularly enthusiastic about creating any new government programs? That sounds pretty appealing to me. I'd much rather have president who does nothing than a president who does something awful, and most of what candidates promise to do is awful by libertarian standards.

There are a few reasons I can think of:
1. A Pres. who doesn't have to worry about re-election is more likely to make unpopular choices that he feels are best for the country.
2. Not motivated by the need to be reelected.
3. It is easier to leave a mess when you know someone else will have to clean it up, even if it is subconciously.

My guess is #1 is the most likely to have had in impact, at least in recent history.

> if [Kerry] gets elected expect the press to start making amends *for that* in the new year.

I doubt it. If they go after Kerry after he's elected, that proves that they were in the tank to get him elected.

MSM must start worrying about its apparent credibility at some point.

The easiest way for MSM to get some credibility is to kiss up to Dems. It will be a lot harder, if not impossible in the short-term, for much of the MSM to regain credibility with the other half of the population, so some may not even try, especially if they think that doing so would risk the Dem sure thing.

I expect the MSM to become more partisan in the next few years.

I'm unconvinced that there's a meaningful pattern. "Problems" turn up in both first and second terms, and "problem-filled" seems like a pretty subjective measure to go by. I suspect that this is a case of searching under the streetlamps.

There are to many variables for me to compare previous Presidents second terms to Bush jrs, if he were to win a second term. But I can analyze Bush jrs prospects if he gets a second term. He may well have majority reps in the House and Senate if he wins this election. Both Hastert and Frist do as they are told, both have the charisma of a slug, and I think Bush will be able to force just about any legislation he wants through. Bush also has no concern in furthering Cheneys political career, Cheney in fact will push jr further to the right, unlike VPs that are eyeing the Presidency themselves, who always push the President to the center. The distance the congressional reps and governors have from this administration will allow the next rep Presidential candidate to be unhurt by Bush jrs policy. With the type of debt Bush jr is likely to leave behind, I would think members of Newties rep congress of the nineties will take off the supply sider costume, and put the debt hawk costume back on to pursue the Presidency. And blame the tax and spend liberals for the new debt, despite the CBO saying two thirds of the new debt is because of the tax cuts. I think Bush jr will be a complete disaster for the country if he wins a second term. His choices make no sense to anyone but his contributors, hes pouring billions into Star Wars, while 95% of cargo entering the country goes uninspected, yet he claims to have a "post 911 mind set." The tax cuts will be made permenant, despite the reasoning that they were an economic stimulus needed because of a recession, despite the fact they didn't achieve 10% of the job creation Bush said they would. The Patriot Act will be expanded, and most Americans already think this version is to damaging to civil liberties. Health Care will continue to climb, the centerpiece of his health care policy is tort reform, the problem is that the increase in malpractice insurance is estimated to be only 2% of the growth in health care expense. On education, No Child Left Behind will not be fully funded, and Pell Grants will not increase. Bush has been the worst President in my lifetime, and he will have no reason to compromise on anything if he gets another term, the guy flat out said he wouldnt change a thing, and only history is capable of judging him.

So Kerry got a dishonorable discharge? How is it then he was discharged dishonorably as a highly decorated vet? How is it that after 35 years in politics, where his war record was well known, this is first coming to light now? How was he sworn in as a Prosecuter, with a dishonorable discharge on his record? The fact is jr is a cheerleader, the poster boy for nepotism, and he can be best described by a five letter word that often preceeds the word cat.

The premise, at least the part about Thomas Jefferson is incorrect. Jefferson's second term was, comparatively, a disaster; they were marked by petty retaliation for those that disagreed with him, culminating in the forcing of the only impeachment of a supreme court justice. Oh yes, there were charges of infidelity too.

Begbee: sounds great to me.

It could also be the case that most of the best ideas and positions of that candidate and his or her team are used up in the first term.

That is, the administration comes in with a set of policies that largely get either adopted or rejected in its first term. The candidate then largely runs on what was accomplished in the first term, and a bit on what ideas they have left for a second term. Since there are fewer policies to fight over in the second term, the media turn to scandals, and the Presidents turn to their second tier policies.

Unless the candidate has a deep bench of policy proposals, or significant new issues to deal with pop up in the second term, it seems likely that the second term will seem less successful because it will be less active, in terms of policy.

Regression to the mean?

I would say it's a combination of the following:

1) Historically, the president's party loses congressional seats in the midterm elections in their second term. THis doesn't always flip control of the House or Senate, but it does diminish the margin and makes it harder to pass legislation.

To contradict me, the Democrats picked up seats in '98, but it was still a lackluster term. Then again, Clinton's power was reduced, though for a (ahem) different reason.

2) Presidents may reassess their records and try to do something that will "change history," which is usually something that no one cares about in the short term (say, Clinton's Race Relations board) or is unpopular yet needed (say, privatizing Social Security)--things the president wants written in the history books. Alas, Congress is thinking two or six years ahead, so is less inclined to get it done.

3) Prospect for Change. The opposing party may see the light at the end of the tunnel and realize that a change in power may be warrented. Since voters do, in fact, like to see change once in a while--especially after eight/twelve/whatever years--the opposition positions itself as such, and is less cooperative.

4) Idea depletion. In order to win re-election, presidents will "use up" all the "popular" ideas in order to secure their re-election; when that is achieved, there's not much else to do but carry on those policies.

5) Fatigue. This is and of itself doesn't cause terms to fail, but it will amplify the problem.

These points may overstate the power of the opposition, which I concede.

I dunno....the best tax law of the post WWII era
(1986) was passed during a 2nd term.

Read a book on the subject but can't seem to find it - it basically analyzed three two term presidents and the differences between their first and second term. I can't remember who they covered beyond Reagan, but their point was that when a president wins a second term, particularly by a landslide as Reagan did, that this, combined with term-limits, makes the president feel untouchable and creates such scandals as Iran-Contra. I suppose you could apply that to Clinton's second term as well, although the book didn't discuss it. I'll see if I can dig up the book - might still be somewhat interesting.

Jefferson's first term was a success, with strong economic growth and frugal management of the national finances. His second term was as Petey describes it, plus great unpopularity for his Embargo of Trade, an attempt to wage war with Great Britain by economic means that initiated a recession and nearly busted the Treasury.

We needed a Monroe Doctrine after that!

Great. You acknowledge that Bush's first term has been ... problematic. Your dad argues that Presidents usually have worse second terms than first terms, and you buy the argument. And yet, you've affirmatively come out for Bush.

On a comparatively exhaustive point-by-point basis, yes, which clearly spent more time considering the issues than you apparently have.

Welcome to Cognitive Dissonance, population...

Your own?

Might apend to that: "Welcome to complete failure in logical reasoning, population..."

Your own, also.

well, I guess we'll have to wait and see how many Bush voters there were in the blue superstates.

Uh-huh, whatever. Tim, I'm sure if you ask nicely, you can get lithium in little Flinstones chewable tablets. Either that, or perhaps you and Begbee can go to a backwoods shack and officially found that ABB cult you've been preaching so vigorously around here. Hey, you disagree with Jane's choice, your prerogative. You disagree with the president's policies and methods. Fine, again, it's your choice.

The continual pissing and moaning about the above has gone waaaay beyond the rational, however.

After Reagan's death, pundits everywhere lauded his main accomplishment: the fall of the Soviet Union.

This happened during his second term.

Sorry Jane, but your dad is wrong here.

Pender gets it right when they say that the party of a 2nd term President usually loses seats in Congress. Eventually he finds it hard to generate the support needed to do really significant things, if for no other reason than the opposition is reluctant to allow credit for any progress to be taken by the other side.

But I think the main difference is a classic case of inflated expectations. The voters have been hearing campaign promises for more than 4 years, they expect the Moon and all the stars on a platter, and they expect the Pres to finally deliver.

I can't say that I've noticed anything too terrible in the 2nd term of any President I've studied. At least, it wasn't too terrible as long as they weren't overtaken by events outside their control. Most of the problems they faced could be attributed to partisanship on the part of Congress.

James

Megan wrote on Instapundit:
> Michael Moore made a movie that's fundamentally dishonest in order to
> score political points, and in doing so, he has helped the cause of
> his country's enemies. We know that he isn't ashamed; he has no
> shame. But his fellow citizens should be outraged.

Yup, the problem with Moore is that he intentionally lies, etc, It'd
be unfortunate if he were simply as some describe him "stupid" and wrong but its much worse/different
since he is intentionally knowingly being dishonest. He has increased the
threat of terrorism through providing them with some anti-american
ammunition. Though likely not much different from what they'd come up
with on their own.

However, if people read the comments on this post: "And the
prestigious Jane Galt endorsement goes to . . .", and other recent
decision related postings, (or read cato.org stuff on Iraq) you'll see
arguments that through a war which was sold to the public in part
through exagerated fear of WMD, Iraqi links to terrorism., etc, (which
appears to be collective mistakes throughout but perhaps some
denial/stupidity also given that Cato and other places pointed out beforehand the
problems re: implementation of war/post-war that arose) Bush has increased the threat of
terrorism by breeding more despite claiming to be fighting a War
against it. He has helped breed terrorists by increasing hatred of the
US and hence helped the cause of this country's enemies. (though Kerry
would doubtful have been, or be, any different).

People,I'd prefer not to repost here stuff already posted
in the other thread re: why I say Bush increased
the threat of terrorism, go read it there before
raising any questions re: Bush increasing
threat of terrorism please.

It could just be regression to the mean.

It is too simple to say second terms are bad. This view of Reagan's is revisionist: Iran-Contra is a footnote, not the lead story to Reagan 84-88.

I'd echo the comment about a second term's lack of unifying force. The fatigue and lack of idea generation are partly results of this splintering, but also of the harsh reality that the term limit means the talent spends a good deal of energy looking for the appropriate departure time.

While Bush may have problems during a second term, the one big thing I see on the horizon is The Fair Tax Amendment. I think if it's passed it will be a positive move for libertarians.

I think Tom has a good point here.

If a President has a good first term, he will likely be re-elected. If the second term is only average, it will be "worse" by comparison.

If a President has a poor first term, he might NOT be re-elected, so there can't be a second term that might be better.

Would Hoover's or Carter's second term have been as bad as the first? Fortunately, we'll never know.

LRF are you Tinkerbells illegitimate biracial fairy offspring? Because you sure are bitter. I have yet to initiate a single personal attack here, yet you offer NOTHING on the content of my posts, and launch a personal attack that clearly shows a bias against rural members of lesser known religions. Dont you realize you are attacking Bushs base with those comments? Think Pentcostals taking up serpents...

If Kerry loses this election it will be because the dems chose to unify the country after 911, instead of holding Bush accountable. Can you imagine what the reps would have done if a Dem President, twenty percent into his term with no terror policy in place, was on vacation when 911 took place? You reps blather on about personal accountability being the solution to all things political, from poverty to crime to race relations, yet base Bushs campaign on nothing but excuses. 911? It was an Intelligence failure and Clinton and Renos fault. First administration to lose jobs since the great depression? Its 911 and the "Clinton recession" we inherited, never mind we changed the definition of recession when we entered office to make that claim. The national debts skyrocketing? Its 911, WoT, Dept of HD, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and somehow not the tax cut that caused two thirds of the new debt. Bush jr is a complete moron, and while it would be bad form to wish assassination upon him if he wins, if he does win, I do hope he gets some slow, very painful terminal disease that would have been curable, if only he would have moved stem cell research forward.

I think that part of the reason that the second term is viewed as less successful is that any scandals have a longer time to play out. I think that timing was a big part of Iran-Contra and Clinton's impeachment. If any information about wrongdoing comes out after someone leaves office it's generally not that big of a deal. I think that corruption does tend to increase during a second term for many reasons.

To comment on what some other people wrote, I think that Iran-Contra was a really big deal. In my opinion this was much worse then Clinton's deal. Saying it wasn't a big deal is revisionist as far as I'm concerned. It was a breach of the separation of powers in the Constitution. If there's one thing I take seriously it's the Constitution, and it's what the President swears to uphold. But I'm more of a Libertarian then a Republican so maybe I don't understand the Republican point of view.

Begbee, you are an utter ass, and no, that isn't an ad hominem attack, but rather, merely an accurate description of one who wishes his political enemies to suffer a slow, painful, illness. Actually, I'll take that back....I've just slandered the four-legged donkeys of the world, and I'm tempted to re-categorize you, but will refrain, for fear of being unfair to fly larvae.

W Allen, first I'll take your adventure in zoological classification as a compliment, positive words from rep hack like you would be much more troubling. Bush is more then political to me, my hatred for Bush is personal, and it has given me an understanding of Jello Biafras hatred of Reagan, its bigger then the person its directed at. I would happily trade Bush for the latest hostages held in Iraq.

Begbee, I'll take this opportunity to lend you some instruction regarding the use of rhetoric. You see, when you call someone a "rep hack", without supporting evidence, and despite the fact that person has voted for Republicans less than 60% of the time, that is ad hominem in nature, and fatuously ad hominem at that. In contrast, when one attributes maggot-hood to a person for wishing that a political opponent suffer a long, painful illness, no ad hominem statement has been made, except that which has been unfairly directed at the actual larvae. To them, I apologize with humility.

Grover Cleveland had a good second term. There was that Chicago strike scandal, but compared to the normal crap that happens to presidents it was pretty mellow.

It would be tough to describe any of his political offices as a failure. He was a pretty cool guy. Even if he had to deal with 9-11, he still would've done a good job.

oops, late night, didn't paste in
the rest of last post.the point of the post re:
Bush making things worse for the US re:
terrorism was also to note (tying into this
thread) that given his first term's
problems it could be that being worse during
the second term would mean accomplishing
less meaning he does less to make us a target for
terrorists. Or grows government less. I hadn't
spent time thinking about those past presidents
second terms, but the question is of course
what criteria determines "worse" for
a second term. For some "worse" may be better.

Now I'll speculate without knowing what you mean
by not having a good second term, being "worse"
to note completely untested possible factors
that might weigh in either directions.

If you mean its "worse" re: what voters desired
when they voted for the canidate, it may be that
the candidate won't be up for re-election and
hence feels free to pursue more closely his
own real agenda which may then also not
match what congress wants. Or feels free to
coast since he won't be judged by a re-election
effort.

If its "worse" from a libertarian standpoint
then of course there is the issue of those
in power becoming more comfortable and desirous
of the use of power. Or if its worse from
a non-libertarian standpoint perhaps through
seeing more up close the execution of laws and
unintended consequences perhaps being
demotivated by the result.

Grover Cleveland had a good second term. There was that Chicago strike scandal, but compared to the normal crap that happens to presidents it was pretty mellow.

By the end of Cleveland's second term his party had totally abandoned him, with the exception of the Gold Democrats who abandonded the party. You can't lay the blame for the panic of 1893 on ol Grover, but I don't think many people were happy with his 2nd term.

W Allen you obviously don't understand the meaning of ad hominem attack. The fact that you disagree with the value system that allows me to cheer for a slow and painful death for Bush in no way allows you to attack me personally and claim it to be not ad hominem attack. Your voting record as stated certainly doesnt match the political philosiphy you present, so my rep hack comments remain accurate.

Rather than "running out of ideas" it may be simply
that the ideas easy to get passed by
congress/implemented were done first and the
rest struggle along. Also the candidate was likely
re-elected in part based on what he did in the first
four years, however the world and public and
congressional perspective changes in 4 years. It may
be that the president's world view, approaches, ideas were pointed in a
direction that was appropriate in the world 4
years before but weren't the best match for the
world 4 years later, that perhaps another
candidate from the same party would have been
a better match for the new state of the world.
The president changes also based on the world's
changes over time but still fundamentally has
the same rut/direction and is perhaps less of a
fit for the changed circumstances. It may
also be the case that the although the guy
was re-elected. This is speculative brainstorming on possible factor which may not match, just
based on again not having gone through to think about the cases you mentioned, I'd have to go research. More info on the cases and the criteria
defining "good" would help if you pursue the
idea further.

Megan, FDR *died* early in his fourth term; hardly a wowser.

I really dont' think that Reagan had all that successful of a second term. He lost control of the Senate, got involved in Iran Contra and had two Supreme Court nominees go down in flames. And despite what some historical revisionists on here are claiming, the Soviet Union did not fall during this term. It happened under Bush. Reagan had his moments during the second term, with the 86 tax reform probably being the best, but even that was more due to Bill Bradley than to him.

FDR's dreadfully awful dealings with Stalin EARLY in his fourth term can be contrasted with a pattern of absolutely no presidential mistakes by FDR in the 2nd through 4th years of his fourth term. (Please pardon my failure to employ superscript - - we need to avoid presenting material in such as way as to convincingly "date" this material.)

Lots of good suggestions here. I do wonder about the definition of a "successful" term. If it's something simple like "still popular at the end of the term", then you'd have to say Clinton's second term was successful. If the definition involves long-term historical judgement, then Reagan's second term was successful, and the jury is still out on Clinton's.

But I have a suggestion, which has the advantage of being eminently libertarian: a President's second term is always less successful than his first because the results of the programs and policies introduced in the first are coming home to roost. It takes a really clever politician to come up with a program like Social Security, or Medicare, that doesn't display its numerous drawbacks until long after he retires.

Exactly how old is your father?

an article on this topic:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041104/cm_usatoday/incumbencybewarestormsof2ndterm&cid=679&ncid=1935
>Incumbency: Beware storms of 2nd term

Hee-hee-hee-hee-heeeee!!! (gasp for breath) Oh, Begbee, you crack me up. So glad to be back online after a week of moving house...

So when you say "LRF are you Tinkerbells illegitimate biracial fairy offspring? Because you sure are bitter," it's not a personal attack? I love your posts about "Why doesn't anybody ever respond to my content instead of just personally attacking me?" They're so cute.

Comments are Closed.