Are Second Term Presidents Invariably Lame Ducks?

1559 Words7 Pages
Are Second Term Presidents Invariably “Lame Ducks”? ‘Lame Duck’ refers to a President who is unable to get any major work done for a period of his time in office. But to what extent is this a term that can be applied to the whole of the Second Term of a President? It is clear that there are significant trends of second term presidents losing popularity, leading to it being difficult to enact policies in a more bipartisan congress. Furthermore, there is a tendency to look to the future in the second term. However, the president can use his second term to enact more extreme policies, and moments of crisis may lead to an increase in any power as he attempts to meet the problems of the crisis, for example, the President and his cabinet may face an increase in power in foreign policy amidst the growing tensions between the USA and Russia over Ukraine and Crimea. Therefore, it may not be overly accurate to declare second-term presidents as “lame ducks”. Presidents are usually held accountable in their second term for the consequences of policies enacted in their first term, for example, Obama is still being held accountable for “Obamacare”, with the government shutdown in Autumn 2013 proving that policies from the first term are subject to attempts to disrupt them in the second term, which might affect the popularity of the President if his policies fail to be successful. It is common for the popularity of Presidents to fall in the second term. For example, in Bush’s second term, an average of only 37% of Americans thought Bush was doing a good job, compared to an average of 62% in his first term. Obama seems to be following a similar pattern, with the trend in his approval rating going down at much the same rate as Bush’s had, although at the moment it is enjoying a short period of support about 4% higher than Bush was at the same point in his term. Poor approval

More about Are Second Term Presidents Invariably Lame Ducks?

Open Document