Washingon sets one-term precedent

What it says on the tin. Washington was considering hanging it up in 1792, but stayed on. But what if this was the precedent he set? Would it be adhered to, or broken early? Would the earlier year make much of a difference in terms of who his successor would be?
 

scholar

Banned
What it says on the tin. Washington was considering hanging it up in 1792, but stayed on. But what if this was the precedent he set? Would it be adhered to, or broken early? Would the earlier year make much of a difference in terms of who his successor would be?
Broken much earlier. Some presidents will try to keep to that precedent, but you will have a couple two term presidents early on, maybe even a three term one. Then, in a century, I expect the precedent to be shattered.
 

Driftless

Donor
It could cut both ways: one-term for President could put pressure on the House & Senate to limit their terms as well, which in turn probably impacts how parties work. Conversely, a single term for president hinders continuity, plus it makes him a lame duck right away....:)
 
It could cut both ways: one-term for President could put pressure on the House & Senate to limit their terms as well, which in turn probably impacts how parties work. Conversely, a single term for president hinders continuity, plus it makes him a lame duck right away....:)

Wouldn't this immeasurably strengthen the Washingtonian Model of the Presidency, with the President being an apolitical leader and almost "national mentor" type figure?
 
Wouldn't this immeasurably strengthen the Washingtonian Model of the Presidency, with the President being an apolitical leader and almost "national mentor" type figure?

Not really no. As history has proven, the Congress can't govern on its own without turning into a bunch of squabbling children at each others throats and needs a strong executive to act as a leader. One term presidency wouldn't be stable enough or powerful enough to do so. Chances are Washington's precedent would be broken much earlier once a President realizes four years isn't long enough to implement their policies.
 
In a world where Washington has only one term, the United States is likely to experience earlier and more severe political polarization. There is no obvious universally popular candidate to cool tensions between pro and anti-Administration officials. If Adams comes to power, which is probable, he'll be as much a polarizing figure as he was in the original timeline.

A related consequence is that Hamilton would be much less influential. Although supported by Washington, both Adams and Jefferson personally loathed Alexander Hamilton.
 
Washington apparently only intended to serve 1 term and had even gone as far as to write a draft of a retirement address but was convinced by both Hamilton and Jefferson to serve again.
 
Top