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?
The staff stop returning calls before the powers run out. A leader with no future to trade on loses the room long before the office is taken away.
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
SOCSomeone who believes authority runs on a leader's future would LEAST expect a lame duck to —
- A Keep legal powers
- B Lose party loyalty
- C Be waited out
- D Be routinely obeyed
- E Struggle passing laws
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 — $29 solo or $59 for your 3-person team.
Unlock full access →New here? Create a free account to read the free section.