This meme’s been popping up a lot on Facebook recently:
This meme is easily refuted by the text of the 22nd Amendment which limits the President to two terms. The relevant portion:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Amendment 22, Section 1
Note there is no mention of impeachment making any difference. The rest of the amendment is concerned with when the amendment goes into effect and exempting President Truman, who was in office at the time this amendment was passed.
The meme may have been inspired by an idea by constitutional scholar William Mattox that an impeached but not convicted President should get a third term. This is not the same thing as stating a president does.
Professor Glenn Reynolds pointed out that this could create perverse incentives. He cites a House controlled by the President’s party to push through phony articles (maybe impeaching him for being a nice guy) to give him a third term.
I see another perverse incentive in that both modern Presidents to be impeached brought it on themselves. Most people will agree what Bill Clinton and Donald Trump did was wrong, but many will insist that impeachment was too severe a response. Under the system proposed by Mattox, a President who behaves ethically can run for two terms. A President who misbehaves and gets impeached can run for three if his party saves him from being actually removed.
At any rate, Mattox’s proposed idea isn’t currently the law and this meme is disrespectful nonsense.
Remember, don’t believe every meme you see. Research them before you share, and think for yourself.
There’s been a lot of ink spilled by conservative pundits about the meaning of the U.K. elections. Many conservative pundits have massively overstated their case and treated Conservative Party Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s victory as a precursor to what will happen with President Trump’s re-election campaign.
First, there is no established link between the two major parties in the U.S. and the two major parties in Great Britain. Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 election was providentially followed by Ronald Reagan’s 1980 win as two twin lions of anti-Communist resolve came to power and formed a close partnership. However, more often, the countries have each gone their own way. In 1992, John Major led the Conservatives to their fourth straight election victory while George H.W. Bush lost that year. In 1997, Tony Blair and his Labour Party came to power in the U.K. and Labour continued to control Great Britain while George W. Bush won two terms in the U.S. In 2010, David Cameron came to power for the Conservatives in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, but that had no impact on President Obama’s re-election two years later.
Second, the U.K. has a very different political system. The U.K. is a parliamentary democracy, it’s made up of four nations (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales), and has spawned multiple regional/nationalist parties. The structure of the parties is different. Prior to the election, Johnson kicked twenty-one uncooperative MPs out of the party and forbid them from running for Parliament on the Conservative line. That’s power the President or U.S. Congressional leaders could only dream about.
Finally, the most important thing that makes the U.K. election unique is Brexit. In 2016, voters went to the polls in a national referendum and opted to leave the European Union. After the election, the pro-Remain members of parliament have undermined the Brexit efforts at every turn, either through outright opposition or through being passive-aggressive and preventing Brexit from actually occurring. Johnson ran on finishing the job and was rewarded with a huge majority.
There’s no issue in the U.S. that’s anything like Brexit. Impeachment or “the wall” doesn’t compare to defying the will of voters regarding their country’s independence in a national referendum. The odious efforts to force a second referendum reeked of politicians who were determined to keep holding new elections until they got the outcome they wanted.
There are lessons to be learned from the U.K. election, and I’ll discuss them in a future post, but the election results has been twisted by many into some prophetic bellwether for 2020 when it’s simply not.
The social media meme is the modern propaganda tool for lazy activists. Lazy activists is an oxymoron but sadly applicable. You can change the world (and not for the better) by sharing memes that confirm your own prejudices and being too intellectually lazy to think about whether it makes sense and too lazy to take two minutes to research something before proclaiming it to all your friends.
According to a bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, many of these memes, on both the left and the right, are crafted by the Russian Internet Research Agency. Everyone making, posting, and sharing malicious memes is inadvertently doing Russia’s job for them.
The goal of the memebuster series is:
Expose the lies and misrepresentations of a given meme.
Encourage independent thinking and research.
Discourage sharing false, misleading, illogical, and hateful memes whether they come from the far left or the far right.
We’ll begin the series with a relatively simple meme:
Whoever made this meme should have said GDP growth rather than GDP. Beyond that, there are three important things that must be said:
This Meme is Out of Date
I found this meme being passed around on social media in November 2019. The story on GDP growth was based on initial estimates for 2nd Quarter 2018 and made the news in late July 2018. Sixteen months later, it’s still being touted on the Internet as if it was just released. The latest quarter’s initial numbers put GDP growth at 1.9%. Though those are initial numbers accurate as of this writing but could easily change.
2. Quotes are Taken Out of Context or Just Wrong
The meme itself discloses one statement that was taken out of context. Obama did say something involving Trump and a magic wand, but it wasn’t about a GDP growth number, it was about Trump’s promise to bring back manufacturing jobs. While bringing back manufacturing jobs might help GDP growth, they aren’t the same thing. Even there, Obama’s point wasn’t that growth in the manufacturing sector or bringing back manufacturing job was impossible, but rather that Trump was being vague on how he was going to achieve results.
The quotes about 1% economic growth being the new normal and 2.5% Growth being unattainable are invented. The second is silly as Obama had two years exceeding 2.5% GDP growth. Obama’s Administration did state that economic growth would be “permanently slower than it was in earlier eras.” That’s reflected in the fact Obama’s administration didn’t have a single year with growth over 3%, and neither has President Trump.
3. Confusing the Issue
While Trump had a quarter with 4.1% growth, that was an initial report of a quarterly number, not an annual number. Michael Hiltzik of the LA Times provided some important context:
…on the campaign trail, Trump promised growth of 3.5% a year, and sometimes even 4%. That’s sustained, annual growth, not annualized growth for a single quarter. He still hasn’t delivered on that promise…
In any case, a 4.1% annualized growth rate isn’t only not “amazing,” it’s not even particularly remarkable. The Obama administration reached it in four quarters, including one with an annualized rate of 5.1%.
It’s worth noting Trump’s Contract with the American People promised 4% growth per year. By focusing on numbers from a single quarter, Trump makes it look like he achieved a goal when he’s still falling short of what was promised with 2.86% in GDP Growth in 2018 and lower growth is expected this year based on the numbers so far.
The question of GDP growth is a complex one. Economists not only debate what level is attainable, but growth numbers for given years and quarters are revised up and down for months, multiple times based on new data.
As such, Facebook memes are not a serious way to discuss this issue. It doesn’t help that this particular meme is unclear as to what it’s talking about, is out of date, makes up quotes or rips them out of context, and distracts from President Trump’s campaign promise, which remains unfulfilled as of this writing.