LBJ Was Right: Abolish the Midterms!

56 years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson proposed a constitutional amendment to make House terms four years instead of two, running jointly with the president's term and thus, in effect, ending the midterms as we have known them. At that time, he said,  "the nation, the principle of democracy, and each Congressional district will be better served by a four-year term." 

It is hard to argue against LBJ's logic. At the time the constitution was written, the prevalent notion was "where annual elections end, tyranny begins." So, it was already progress of a sort just to have a two-year term for congressmen (let alone a four-year term for the president). But that was nonsense then, and it remains nonsense now. What that idea definitely does do is encourage an electoral reaction against the incumbent president midway through his term, which makes a mockery of the idea of a four-year mandate and encourages (if not ensures) deadlock, inaction, and political dysfunction instead of legislating and governing.

Synchronizing presidential and congressional terms would not give the U.S. a parliamentary system, but it would makes us a little more like one - to our benefit. In creating our uniquely American alternative to the parliamentary model of government, the U.S. constitution has hobbled government in the name of limiting it. Like most Americans, I am all for limiting government in the sense of constitutionally taking certain topics off the table and limiting the government's reach - e.g., prohibiting it from establishing a religion as the first Amendment does. 

But constitutionally limited government in that sense that is not the same as institutionalizing a system which encourages voters to make governing impossible for the second half of each presidential term. When voters vote for the opposition to "balance" the president, they in effect are voting for deadlock and inaction, which may be what they think they want, but is actually the opposite of what may be needed. At present, there is widespread discontent with a politics that produces very little by way of perceived tangible benefits for many people. But "balancing" one party by empowering the other in the House only increases the very inaction and partisan dysfunction that is one of the reasons why the system produces so little by way of perceived tangible benefits for its citizens.

With the horrifying prospect of divided government again staring us in the face after tomorrow's midterms, LBJ's proposed constitutional amendment looks even better now than it did in 1966!

Photo: President Lyndon B. Johnson delivers his State of the Union Address, January 12, 1966