Lame Ducks and Term Limits
The United States has no caretaker governments (neither does Venezuela), but it does limit its presidents to two four-year terms in office. As their second term begins to run out, they inevitably find themselves losing power and influence. They are said to become “lame ducks” as the country turns its attention to younger, healthier ducks who might win the next election. Discuss with your team: to prevent lame ducks, would it be better to have no limits on how long a person can lead a country or organization? What would you advise someone wanting to hold onto power for as long as possible?
Key concepts
- Authority Runs on the Future
- People obey a leader for what he can still do TO or FOR them; the moment a fixed, near end-date shrinks that future, the obedience drains away — which is what actually makes a 'lame duck' weak, title and office intact.
+ 1 more concept inside
Every work — at a glance
-
Washington's Two-term Precedent (case)
George Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms in 1797, setting an unwritten American norm that presidents don't cling to power.
+ 2 more works explained inside
Across subjects
Theme connection
"Are We There Yet?"
Practice — a sample
SOCIf you were advising a mayor whose staff have begun ignoring her orders though her legal powers are unchanged, which would you tell her is the cause —
- A Voters distrust lame ducks
- B Authority runs forward
- C Legal ceilings on power
- D Deputies chasing promotion
- E Shorter overall terms
Sign in to answer and see why each option is right or wrong.
Keep reading the full lesson
The remaining insights, works, and practice come with full access — $9.99/month or $29.99/season.
Unlock full access →New here? Create a free account to read the free section.