Advertise on podcast: The Dr. John Bedker Leadership Podcast

Playbook 3- Term Limits and Age Limits As Fall approaches, change is in the air. Days are becoming shorter and temperatures are cooling. Leaves are turning and sweaters and sweatshirts are being pulled off the shelf in the closet.  Hurricanes have hit our coasts, and the administration of President Trump is proposing an oil deal with the Russian President Vladimir Putin, a live streamed firing squad execution of a convicted military officer, and replacement of President Zelensky as the leader of Ukraine because he is unwilling to cede his country’s sovereign land to its invader.   Less than a month from the mid-term elections in the United States, this is the octogenarian voice of the leader of the free world.  It seems a timely moment to discuss term limits and age limits for the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. government.  Not just for this moment in American history, but for transformative change.   Term Limits-   Term limits for the President of the United States are limited to two terms by the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, ratified on February 27, 1951. There are no term limits for other members of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of government, including the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.  16 states have, however, enacted laws imposing term limits on state legislators.   There is a myriad of factors that have changed since the framers wrote the Constitution.  We live in a very different world. Health care capabilities and life expectancy are both dramatically different than the time of the framers. The Courts today hold more power than the framers ever imagined. The United States is the only nation in the world with a high court with no term or age limits.  The three co-equal branches of government today are neither co- nor equal. So, from our human condition to the functional failures of our unequal centers of power, our current system was unthinkable to the framers of our Constitution.  These are but a few of the myriads of reasons why rethinking term limits and age limits is needed now.   Leadership is about doing the right thing.  What is the right thing regarding term limits?  I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle.  We are experiencing what no limits has gotten us.  What would happen if there were term limits?     I believe there would be both intended and unintended consequences.  On the unintended side, people with noble hearts may be limited in their years to serve.  Agendas may be left unfinished, relationships may not be allowed to continue to develop to serve for the betterment of Americans, expertise and experience may be cast aside.  Each of these unintended consequences may be real. So, why seek term limits?   Term limits and age limits are not panaceas, but they may be important structural components to a wide range of current problems. Problems unconceived by the framers. Term limits and age limits could contribute to a reduction of corruption, could bring new voices, new vision, new skills, to our everchanging and increasingly turbulent world. Term limits in and of themselves insure change.  Government is meant to represent the people.  Term limits bring into specific practice a check on representation.  Is my representative, my senator, my judge, my President, representing me, representing my values and interests, representing America? Term limits can contribute to addressing these critical issues.   So, here is a proposal.  Two four-year terms for the Office of President to remain as prescribed by the Constitution.  Two 6-year terms for U.S. Senator, for a total of 12 years of service. Six two-year terms for a U.S. Congressman, for a total of 12 years of service. One 12-year term for a U.S. Federal judge, including members of the U.S. Supreme Court.   The people most likely to oppose this or similar proposals are congressmen, senators, and judges themselves and the donors, lobbyists, and interest groups that support them They want their person in office.  This is another compelling argument for transformative term limit change.   Some incredibly capable and well-intended public servants may unintendedly be adversely affected by term limits, but new, capable and well-intended public servants may have the opportunity to bring their fresh perspectives to the betterment of the American people.   Age Limits-   Getting older is not a disease.  Cognitive decline happens to us all.  Unfortunately, some more quickly than to others. There is not yet science to predict or inform us when an individual cognitive decline will begin and at what rate that decline will proceed.  To be sure, though, cognitive decline and aging are inextricably linked.   There is broad bipartisan support for age limits. 76% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans support age limits. Where is the current Congress?     In the United States Senate from age 70-79 there are 27 Senators, and for 80 years of age and older there are 6 Senators.  That means a body of 100 Senators has 33 members 70 years of age or older.   In the United States House of Representatives from age 70-79 there are 71 Congressmen, and for 80 years of age and older there are 13 Congressmen. A body of 435 Congressmen have 84 that are age 70 or older.   Looking at the total number of members over age 70 there are 98 in the House and Senate combined and 19 age 80 and older combined. That equals 117 members of either the House or the Senate that are 70 years of age or older.   Beyond the real, but unpredictable, cognitive decline of everyone, there exists the reality that setting an age limit could mitigate the effects of cognitive decline. Age limits would further provide opportunities for younger motivated, capable, digitally aware aspirants to public office. Change can be good.   In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court there may be additional benefits. Staggering terms could provide the opportunity for each President to appoint justices.  It would also mitigate the strategic timing of a justice retiring to provide a politically aligned replacement.  In the world of leadership where the prime directive is to do the right thing, timing a justice for retirement for political reasons is certainly not the right thing.   So, I offer the following proposal.  All members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government should be limited to age 70 to serve.  Excellent people may be adversely affected, but just as in the arguments for term limits, the benefits of age limits far outweigh the benefits of maintaining the status quo.   The transformative action of applying term limits and age limits would benefit the American people, be reflective of the overwhelming majority of Americans, and be a tangible example of Americans legislating to do the right thing.

Playbook-2- Corruption   Money and power are at the heart and soul of corruption in the United States government.  Money enables power, but it is power that drives corruption.  Corruption today is pervasive.  Playbook-2 will offer several ways to address corruption today in our legislative, judicial and executive branches of the U.S. government.   Leadership is about doing the right thing.  The key word being, doing.  What is needed are tangible actions against corruption.  We must go beyond punishing corruption. Accountability needs to meet or exceed the scale of the corruption.  The perpetrator(s) must be accountable in a real sense, a tangible and visible sense. Words are not enough.  We live in times very different than days gone by.  The guardrails that have been relied upon in the past, are no longer dependable. Guardrails are largely an anachronism.   The landmark cases, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission and the follow-on case SpeechNOW.org v Federal Election Commission are the two prime cases enabling the introduction of unlimited campaign finance contributions, the creation of Super Pac’s, and the introduction of “dark money” to political campaigns.  This money enables a few very wealthy individuals in society to wield undemocratic amounts of power. The voices of the collective (the people) are minimized when money in unlimited amounts is contributed by a few very wealthy people and entities. Additionally, numerous surveys in the U.S. suggest that the influence of big donors to political campaigns is central to corruption in government. These surveys document that between 70% to over 80% of survey respondents identified corruption in government to be a major problem in the United States.  The actions necessary to remove corruption are many.  One approach is to return to the public funding of elections.  This approach has both broad and deep public support.  Again, well over 70% by numerous surveys.    So what actions are necessary to effectuate transformative change? Amending the U.S. Constitution - is the optimal approach - to return to the public funding of elections.  This amendment could limit campaign funding to public funding and eliminate private and corporate contributions; government contractors, labor unions and other non-human entities could also be eliminated from campaign funding; and lastly, dark money contributors must also be eliminated from contributing to political campaigns.  An amendment of this magnitude would be transformative.     As a starting point, we need to be clear about how to Amend the Unites States Constitution.  Here goes: The first, and optimal approach.   Proposing an Amendment An amendment must be proposed by one of two methods:  Congress: A two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. (All 27 current amendments were proposed this way.)  Constitutional Convention: A national convention called by Congress upon the application of two-thirds (34 of 50) of the state legislatures. This method has never been used.    Ratifying an Amendment Once proposed, an amendment must be ratified by one of two methods (chosen by Congress):  State Legislatures: Approval by three-fourths (38 of 50) of the state legislatures. State Conventions: Approval by special ratifying conventions in three-fourths (38 of 50) of the states. (This method was used only once, for the 21st Amendment.)    As I stated above, amending the Constitution is the optimal means to address the core issue of corruption, however, this approach may not be achievable in the near term. The chasm between opposing political ideologies, polarization, an overarching lack of fortitude to do the right thing by both parties, and unfortunately, an ever-present need to display fealty to the President of the Unites States. Any one of these may be sufficient to derail an effort to amend the Constitution.   A Second Approach-   A Legislative Option to Mitigate Corruption   Should the 2026 mid-term elections bring about a change in the majority of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, then a series of legislative initiatives could be advanced into law.  If the Democrats win a majority in both the House and the Senate much could be accomplished without an amendment to the United States Constitution.     Among these initiatives would include an overhaul of federal ethics laws to include all members and staff of the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches of government with permanent funding and enforcement mechanisms.   Included in these ethics’ laws would be the President of the United States and his staff and the Justices of the United States Supreme Court and their staff.   The Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause would need to be codified in a clear and enforceable way.  Clarity in deeds, actions, funding and enforcement would need to be incorporated in a way beyond words.   The elimination of stock trading, private placement investments, venture capital investments, or other investment activity while a member of congress, member of the judiciary or member of the executive branch of government. This would include both the President and Justices of the Supreme Court. All investments, while a member of any branch of government must be held in a blind trust. The perception of corruption must be mitigated.  The blind trust must be verifiable and regularly audited and made available for public review.   The overseer of each of these initiatives must be independent, permanently and fully funded with real authority to enforce, act and require change and accountability.   Consistent with each of these transformative initiatives would be the empowerment of a free press and the encouragement of whistleblowers to speak up and speak out when wrongs occur.   In summary, Playbook-2 begins the transformative journey for governing and leading for a pro-democracy vision for the country.  Addressing and mitigating corruption is the necessary starting point.  Incremental change cannot be the answer.  To nibble at this agenda is not the call for transformative change.  In today’s world, leadership - doing the right thing - is the bold and courageous call for action.  Sourcing: Weiner, D. I., Zdanys, J., & Petry, E. (2026, January 20). Nine Solutions for Political Corruption, A new era of anticorruption reform is long overdue.

This playbook offers a transformative change in how we can and should govern and lead in the United States. Leadership is about doing the right thing. Simple to say, but often difficult to do. Dr. Bedker will delve into our political, economic, social, and military worlds and showcase how things are and how they could be. This playbook will offer a current review of our body politics and provide a transformative and cultural leadership change. He will provide a new way to govern and to lead.

The final episode. A summary of the 100 podcasts is offered. Leadership has been my life’s work and my life’s passion. It has been my honor to share with you my life as practitioner, scholar, and leader.

"We are drowning in information while starving for wisdom,” so said E. O. Wilson. Synthesising information is a critical skill for leaders today. Making sense and making meaning about not just data, but the myriad of nuanced factors that surround data is essential to leadership success. The connecting of dots in our world today. This episode describes the why and the how of synthesis for leaders today.

Following last episodes discussion on communications as a critical leadership core competency, this episode showcases a real life case of how NOT to communicate.  This episode highlights a failure and folly to communicate in a prequel to war.  The President of the United States and his top military advisors are displayed.

Two important axioms drive this episode. “You never have a second chance, to make a first impression," and “be mindful not only of what you say, but how you say it.” Through quotes and science, this episode seeks to highlight this critical leadership core competency: Communication.

Not addressing climate change may end our world. Not addressing proactively the potentials of another global pandemic may end our world.  Today we discuss the expiration of our Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The proliferation of strategies arms, particularly nuclear arms, could end life in our planet in minutes. Nowhere could leadership be more important. Today we discuss the failure of leaders to lead on this planet critical issue.

World leaders gathered at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this week. President Donald Trump of the United States and Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada both spoke. President Trump’s speech was full of misinformation, disinformation, and inaccuracy. Attacks were made on allied world leaders and praise and support was given to autocrats and dictators. The other was made by Prime Minister Carney. Prime Minister Carney’s presentation is a seminal leadership presentation. An exemplar.

2026 is going to be a year of leadership clashes. The battles, literal and figuratively, between autocracy and democracy, between capitalism and democracy, and those that champion these views. We will bring you the stories that illuminate these disparate leadership styles. This episode is a cameo of the year ahead in leadership.

This episode, our Year in Review episode, touches on several of the exemplary leaders of 2025. Leaders from walks of life as diverse as politics and religion; as message driven as that from one of the greatest basketball players of all time, to a neuroscientist seeking to make sense of our troubled and turbulent world. The role and need for leaders has never been more critical. Happy Holidays everyone. Thank you all for tuning in.

Leadership is about doing the right thing. Leaders must be deaf to expediency where principle is involved. What 8 Democratic Senators did in voting with the Republicans may have led to an ending of the U.S. government shutdown, but was not the right thing. It was capitulation. It was a cave in. They achieved little, if anything. They agreed to a future vote on ACA tax credits without the votes to prevail. A failure of leadership. The Democrats were winning. The American people supported them. Yet they caved in.

In our current troubled and turbulent world it is important to look at what a leader really is. This episode highlights an exemplary leader of character and selfless action, Fred Minier. A young Naval Officer on his first assignment following graduation from the United States Naval Academy. His life of leadership was Non Sibi, not for self, but others. He gave his life unhesitatingly for others.

We are drawn to shiny objects. They are present, current and draw our attention. These are important for leaders. As important, and perhaps more so, are the big questions. Questions that will transform our work, our workplaces and our lives. Taking this larger view and addressing the big questions is a critical leadership function.

The United States government has shut down. The reasons are myriad, but boil down to leadership. The Democrats have tried to represent those they serve and vote to protect them. The Republicans have their own agenda to advance tax cuts for the rich. This involves cutting costs, cutting programs, and cutting services for many Americans. Particularly, those in need. Leadership is about “doing the right thing.”  On display by the Republican Party is exactly the opposite.