Happy Birthday Ronnie!

On February 6, 1911 in an apartment above a bakery in Tampico, Illinois Ronald "Dutch" Reagan was born to John and Nelle Reagan. Few might assume he was presidential material at the time, but one person to perhaps see his potential was Ronald's father. "He looks like a fat little Dutchman," said John Reagan seeing his son for the first time, "but who knows he might grow up to be President someday." This prophecy came true almost 70 years later when Ronald Reagan became the 40th President of the United States. The most unforgettable characteristics of Reagan were his prevailing optimism, his quick sense of humor, and his compassion for people. His confidence in all Americans gave strength to a nation struggling to recover from an economic crisis and still healing from the scars of the Vietnam War. His eight years in office saw an unprecedent economic turn around, the first ever nuclear reduction treaty, and a better relationship with the Soviet Union than at time during the Cold War. His leadership is credited with helping to bring about the collapse of communism in Europe and the Soviet Union.  President Reagan was a true leader, firm but compassionate, strong but flexible, optimistic but not naive, all this and so much more. The truth is no words can fully describe Ronald Reagan. So this Presidents Day remember that a century ago was the beginning of a journey, a journey that would propel an unknown baby boy from Tampico, Illinois to one of America's most legendary Presidents. Only in America.

The 22nd Amendment, A good or bad restriction on presidents?

"No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once."
It is this part of  Section 1 of the 22nd Amendment that limits all presidents to just two terms in office. The 22nd amendment was ratified by the States on February 27, 1951. The amendment ensured that no one (except Harry Truman) could ever duplicate the four term Presidency Franklin Roosevelt had served. While many supported  it then, and most still do today, there are some who believe that a President should be allowed to serve more than two terms. So I enter the debate, should Presidential  terms be limited? Should we deny the American people from choosing a leader they think is successful more than twice? These questions may not seem like anyone would take them up seriously but some people have. Several congressman have proposed repealing the amendment  at least a dozen times since 1995. Even Ronald Reagan supported abolishing term limits in his post-president years. While no proposals have ever made it out of committee (and it is unlikely they ever will) it is still an issue that triggers a lively debate. it is also an issue that I want to have a solid opinion on.
  Why I Believe Term Limits Should be In place
The argument of some including Alexander Hamilton and Ronald Regan is that term limits prevent the American people from rewarding leaders they believe are successful. Also with term limits a second term presidents is a lame duck from the time he begins his second term as everyone knows he will leave office in four years. Also because they have no elections left to run for, second term presidents care less of what the public opinion think of them and their policies and therefore are more likely to become brewed in scandals or make unpopular decisions regarding policy. On the other side of the argument people say that removing term limits could result in one person being president for decades and that this would stifle the democracy the founding fathers intended to build. A democracy where a common man is elected to serve in the government for a few years and then go home, a democracy without career politicians. But could there ever be a president for life or a multiple term President as long as we continue to hold elections every four years?
Both sides have a good argument. But ultimately I think establishing term limits was the right thing to do. The idea that elections would prevent an unwanted long term presidency is not as powerful a factor as it may seem. The longer one remains an incumbent the more power and influence they gain, weather its through force or providing for others using the power of their position. A great example is Egypt, its clear now that President Mubarak wasn't very popular with the Egyptian people. But then how could the man win five terms as President and serve for over thirty years? Because of his power as an incumbent. Because he continued to impose Marshall Law on Egypt after the assignation of Anwar Sadat he had the power to imprison political opponents, bribe voters, and command advertisement outlets. Many people say this can't happen in the United States because of the freedoms our Constitution protects, but it does happen, just in a different form. Today we still have senators like John Mccain, Joe Leiberman, and Barbara Mikulski who that have served for decades. How have they remain in office for so long? Because of their power as incumbents. Over time incumbents are able to build up their political machines and support bases. Since they have influence on a national level they are able to provide benefits and rewards to those who support them. Eventually their power reaches a point were no one can challenge them and win. With this power and influence some politicians are able to stay in office for life. Senators like Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy remained in office until they died because they were politically impossible to challenge. The same is for our only president to serve more than two terms, Franklin Roosevelt. Despite the war in Europe as being a reason for his election to a third term, his New Deal benefits which many people depended on, created and enviorment were he couldn't lose.This is why term limits our important, they prevent career politicians and create a government where power and alliances our less of a concern, also the limited time in office acts as an incentive for those who wish to pass certain legislation and reforms to work quickly. This is why I think we should consider reestablishing term limits in Congress. I believe it would greatly benefit the American people and the government. As for those who argue that presidents and politicians in their final terms are lame ducks and are more likely to become involved in scandals as they no longer care about what the public thinks of them i have two points. First, the office of an elected official is influential is as much as the person holding it. Regardless of how much time they have in office a true leader can make a major impact on the decision making process. Second, if an official decides to do something he know is wrong because he won't be affected by any political fall out, should not have been elected in the first place. While seeking another term might impact the timing of their decisions, elections cannot change a person.

This is my opinion on weather we should have term restrictions, but I want to hear your ideas to so please comment.

The "Containment" Policy - Protecting Democracy with Dictatorship

The policy of "containment" originated under President Harry Truman, became the main policy of the United States during the Cold War. The goal of this policy was to stop the Soviet Union's communist ideology from spreading to other nations of the world.  Many like to think the Cold War was a battle between democracy and communism, between freedom and oppression. However, as always, with world politics nothing is black and white; there are a thousand shades of gray. The Cold War was no different. The ultimate goal of "containment" was not to promote democracy as much as to stop communism. People wonder today why the United States is today viewed with suspicion and distrust from other nations. One of the main reasons for this is because of our lack of consistency during the Cold War.

During the Cold War, the United States would support right-wing governments and dictatorships that suppressed their own people, all in the name of stopping communism. In countries like Nicaragua and Ethiopia this strategy back-fired as it turned the majority of the populations against the harsh pro-US governments giving the communist parties the strength to overthrow them and install a communist regimes. Not only did these countries become communist, the new governments turned against the US for supporting the previous suppressive regimes. Situations like these impact our relationships with some countries to this day.

Probably one of the most lasting results of of our support for unpopular governments is Iran. Our support for the Shah until he was ousted created the scene for the 79-81 Iranian hostage crisis. The result is a hostile view of Iran that continues to this day.

Since the end of the Cold War I believe today our policy of containment has been replaced a more mature world view. The United States prides itself as an example of democracy and freedom, but actions speak louder than words.  If we claim to support life and liberty throughout the world then we must show that we do. I see Iraq and Afghanistan as promising examples that the policy has changed with the end of the Cold War. In these countries the United States has supported governments that are chosen by their people, and are held accountable by their people. Perhaps in the future this era will be remembered as a time were we not protected democracy but also, strengthened it throughout the world.