A Presidential form of Government - Term Paper Example

DO MODERN AMERICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE TOO MUCH POWER? The US government, being a presidential form of government, is a system that gives a strong role to the head of the executive who participates fully in its actual decision-making processes.1 Indeed, since the presidency of George Washington, the power of the United States presidency has steadily increased. This paper will explore why this has become so and identify the causes and reasons behind it. Constitutional Ambiguity The US president’s constitutional powers are the result of interpreting rather vague phrases in the Constitution. The President is the administrative head of the United States because it was stipulated by the US Constitution that the executive power shall be vested in the President. According to David Mauk and John Auckland (2005), “what that and other constitutional phrases mean in practice has evolved from claims that Presidents have made without provoking Congress or the courts to effectively oppose them.”2 For example, as chief administrator, the President is required to see that laws are carried out, but, interpreted broadly it has enabled Presidents to break a strike or send troops to integrate a public school. This issue particularly covers certain important duties of the President including the area of foreign policy, defense/military and the President, as the chief lawmaker. Military Power Arthur Schlesinger, in 1973, published a book called The Imperial Presidency which argued that “by the early 1970s, the American President had become on issues of war and peace the most absolute monarch (with the possible exception of Mao Tse-tung of China) among the great powers of the world.”3 It was Schlesinger’s contention that the assumption of power by the presidency had been gradual and usually under the pretext or demand of an emergency, leaving little doubt that it was as much a matter of congressional abdication as of presidential usurpation. One is inclined to agree with this argument as shown in the US involvement in the Vietnam War from 1950 to 1975. Julian Zelizer (2004) recounted how the president and his principal aides generally determined the broad contours as well as the narrow specifics of policy while quick to disclaim responsibility for decisions pertaining to a murky struggle thousands of miles from America’s shores, often pointing out that they lacked clear signals from their constituents.4 Some analysts, who favor a strong President, argue that the national security state required strong presidency that is able to act quickly in international crises. Modern history is plagued by a number of crises that is why the steadily growing military power of the modern American Presidents is almost being institutionalized. The US Constitution names the President as commander-in-chief, making him the highest ranking officer in the armed services, but gives Congress the power to declare war. The founders’ attempt to give the legislature control over the executive’s military proved so limited that in 1973 Congress passed the War Powers Act to restrain the President by requiring congressional approval for deployment of American troops abroad within specified time limits.5 Previous experience showed that Presidents have unanimously called the Act unconstitutional and have followed its notification procedure only when it suited them. Looking back in history, one would find that since the Second World War, most wars and conflicts that the US has engaged in have never been really declared. The Congress’ involvement in these conflicts were ironically the passing of resolutions that vested upon the President nearly carte blanche to conduct armed conflict as he sees fit. For example, we have the case of the Korean War, wherein national security ideology and the perceived emergency smoothed the way for congressional acquiescence to executive domination of the decision-making process. According to Dennis Florig (1992): The President’s decision to send troops into the Korean conflict was made with only the barest consultation with Congress. So was the decision to try to conquer all Korea after South Korea had been initially secured. At no point during the war did the Truman administration seek a congressional declaration of war.6 It is because of the aforementioned factors why the President has tremendous power when it comes to military and national defense issues. Emergency Power The use of emergency power by the US President is also one of the fundamental factors that underscore how powerful a US President could become. In the wrong hands, they pose a danger of possible abuse. In the concept of emergency powers, the President during a period of dire emergency exercises a tremendous array of power. During an emergency, power is concentrated in the executive branch of the government and the other branches – congress and the Supreme Court – generally plays a subsidiary role during the period of the crisis; supporting the president by their acquiescence during (and oftentimes even after) the emergency period.7 Emergency power was first used Lincoln during the Civil War. On April 27, 1861, reacting to Baltimore mobs interfering with troop trains moving from Philadelphia to Washington, he authorized the Commanding General of the United States to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and the District of Columbia. The moral quality of Lincoln’s image, at least in the popular mind, had the effect of posthumously legitimizing (if that were needed) this particular action – the conception and use of emergency powers. Indeed, after Lincoln died, Justice David Davis, in his decision in Ex parte Milligan, took the opposite side in this issue by ruling that “No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man in that its [the Constitution’s] provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.”8 In a less extreme perspective, emergency powers is not, in and of itself, a bad thing; and neither is congressional and judicial docility if the President acts according to the generalized rules of constitutional dictatorship/constitutional government and normal times – where legislative and judicial roles really do operate – are restored as completely as possible as soon as the emergency is actually over. Now, when the case is otherwise, that becomes the problematic area. For instance, after the Pearl Harbor bombing, Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 commanding the internment of 70,000 citizen of Japanese ancestry – a move that is probably the greatest abuse of the US President’s emergency power.9 Foreign Policy Another area in which the President is dominant is the realm of foreign policy-making. Presidents have learned to circumvent the constitutional clauses that require approval by two thirds of the Senate for ratification of a treaty and a simple majority for confirmation of diplomatic appointments. For instance, we have the case of the National Security Advisor, who owes his position solely to the President’s choice plus the fact that his office functions as the main advisor in formulating foreign policy. What is significant in the present system of policy-making is that decisions are most often carried out through executive agreements, which do not need the approval of the Senate.10 At this point, one should remember that the President has at his disposal four major organizations to support his conduct of foreign affairs – all under the executive department and none from other branches of the government so as to ensure that there is some semblance to the concept of checks and balances in policymaking. These are the Departments of State and Defense, the CIA and National Security Council. While one has to acknowledge that the Congress is exerting some efforts in asserting its role in foreign policy making, it recognizes presidential leadership.11 In the year 2002, the Department of Homeland Security would be added to this roster of agencies that assist the President in mobilizing and disciplining the public for national defense during the global war on terrorism, an open-ended period of national crisis that some commentators have christened the “second cold war”. Weakened Party System The US electoral process requires a personalized presidential selection process wherein a presidential candidate must campaign and rely on donors to win.12 A President’s success with this feat does not rely much on his political party resources as much as in his own ability to attract political donors as he wades through the presidential primaries, caucuses and the presidential elections. This is a fundamental issue in the increase of power that the President wields when he is finally elected to the White House. The reason is simple: the President is less and less beholden to the party programs and policies. In the modern era, the trend is there, the gap between presidential candidates and their party is increasing, not least because candidates have less of a need for their parties to win office. Moreover, the increased prominence of independent groups in electoral process suggests that coalition building during the campaign is increasingly done outside conventional party bounds. No one can deny that this affects party-ties afterwards. It is unfortunate, therefore, that today, presidential candidates are starting to be more distant from party influence especially with the advent of technology which facilitates the direct political communications between the elite and the citizenry. One sees this happening in the on-going contest for the Democratic presidential nomination between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both of these candidates have raised tremendous amounts on their own in order to fund their campaigns. Although much has been said about the role of the party officials in choosing the nominee, the trend says the party goes with the popular and electable candidate, one who is propelled by the financial muscle of his campaign chest. It is safe to argue that bargaining, coalition building, negotiations, happens outside of the party and that, as with the case at hand, party officials are reduced to confirming an inevitable momentum of a candidate. Nowadays, as what we have been told by politicians as varied as Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter, a candidate for presidency need no longer build up a mosaic of alliances with interest groups and party leaders. Through the miracle of the mass media (especially television), through mass mailings and Internet messages to appeal for money, and through federal subsidy if these appeals are successful, presidential candidates can reach every home and touch every heart and claim the allegiance of followers based on ideological affinity rather than concrete bargains.13 In 1972, the free spirit George McGovern breaks through the network of old politicians and gets nominate for president. It is not surprising that not a few pundits and political theorists have already entertained the idea that democracy can exist without political parties. In this regard, it is useful to stress that although the existence of political parties by no means guarantees democracy, they are vital for the functioning of a healthy democratic political order. Larry Diamond confirmed this as he wrote: Political parties remain important if not essential instruments for presenting political constituencies and interests, aggregating demands and preferences, recruiting and socializing new candidates for office, organizing the electoral competition for power, crafting policy alternatives, setting the policy-making agenda, forming effective governments, and integrating groups and individual into the democratic process. In a book called, Modern Presidential Electioneering, Jody Baumgartner (2000) stressed some important implications of a weakened party system, especially in the increase of the presidential power: a party lends a certain stability to the direction and course of policy, insulating it to some degree from the whims of the public and that in the extreme, a candidacy unconnected to a political party runs a danger similar to that which the founders feared, namely, demagogic or populist politics. parties are a mediating influence, a stable channel for the marshaling of disparate political forces, and without that mediating influence, messianic and self-reliance tendencies in a president may be encouraged or exacerbated and the potential for abuse of power becomes greater.14 One of the example cases wherein the President adopted policies that diverge from the party line were those by Bill Clinton. In his incumbency he constantly used focus group polling in the formulation of policy and often not what is being advocated by the Democrats. This loosely structured process also underscores another dimension in the presidential power – that of populism which dangerously veer toward reactionary policymaking which could prove detrimental to the interest of the country. Also, within this scenario, one needs to ask himself, “Without the party, how can the president be held accountable for his or her policy initiatives? Populism Another essential variable that has tremendous effect on the strength of the presidential power is how the US government-system’s institutions react to public opinion. There are many instances to prove that a President who really believes in his cause and has persistency, can educate the nation in his support that a difficult case could eventually make its way to victory. Harold Laski (1980) cited some examples: The fight of Theodore Roosevelt for conservation is one example of it. The ability with which Woodrow Wilson took a united nation with him into the War of 1914 is another; for brilliance of timing, indeed, it would be difficult to surpass that achievement when it is remembered that, only five months before, the slogan “he kept us out of war” was one main cause of Wilson’s re-election. Even Franklin Roosevelt’s unsuccessful campaign against the Supreme Court prepare public opinion to believe that it was a reactionary body the composition of which was unsatisfactory; and this prepared the way for the virtually unanimous acceptance by the Senate of [presidential] nominations which, but a short time before, would undoubtedly have been stoutly challenged.15 Again, this is especially true today now that we have the wonders of technology and the miracles of the media creating virtual fora for the President to make his case to the nation. Conclusion The US Constitution contains explicit provisions concerning war, rebellion, invasion, and domestic violence in the United States as well as the division of power among the three co-equal branches of the government. Furthermore, the founding fathers have chosen to establish the kind of democracy that works within the concept of the systems of checks and balances. Also, it contains no such provisions, anything like “the state of siege” or the “state of emergency” found in continental systems of government as explored elsewhere in this paper. In this country, Americans are left to find the necessary power to deal with emergencies and issues in express constitutional provisions relating to executive and legislative powers, including the reasonable implications therefrom, and in the statutory law and the general principles, usages and practices of the US legal system. The controversy now lies on whether there is adequate power found or whether, to act efficiently, the government, or the executive department particularly, must go outside or circumvent the limits, take advantage of the constitutional ambiguity or simply act unconstitutionally. According to Harold Laski, power is always a dangerous thing; and the temptation to its abuse, as no generation has learned more surely than our own, the subtlest poison to which a man may succumb.16 Let us look at President Bush’s “war on terrorism” and the awesome power given to him in the aftermath of the 9/11 bombings. Even considering the horrendous loss of life, it was not what the spin has put forward as our new “day of infamy” meriting a declaration of war on another country. Why? The President called the terrorist attack on the United States an act of war; and by all known measurable standards that is exactly what it was. But it was not an act of war committed by a nation-state since the attack was an action by private individuals of another country. Robert Watson warned that what we have is more akin to the problem posed by anarchists in the US in the period between 1880 to 1927 (the year Sacco and Vanzetti were executed).17 In light of these circumstances, Americans should think very seriously about allowing or permitting the President to create precedents that could, in time, become permanent. As it is, the institution of the US presidency has become all to powerful in most respects – in terms of military, foreign policy-making, the emergency power granted in time of crises and the increasingly participatory cum reactionary democracy that the US has become – a situation that is easily taken advantage of by a persuasive and forceful President. References Baumgartner, Jody. (2000). Modern Presidential Electioneering: An Organizational and Comparative Approach. Wesport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Florig, Dennis. (1992). The Power of Presidential Ideologies. Greenwood Publishing Group. Laski, Harold. (1980). The American Presidency. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Mauk, David, and Oakland, John. (2005). American Civilization: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Polsby, Nelson, Wildavsky, Aaron, and Hopkins, David. (2007). Presidential Elections: Strategies and Structures of American Politics. Philadelphia: Rowman & Littlefield. Robertson, David. (2002). A Dictionary of Modern Politics. London: Routledge. Rose, Gary. (1991). Controversial Issues in Presidential Selection. SUNY Press Rossiter, Lawrence and Quirk, William. (2002). Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Schlesinger, Arthur. (2004). The Imperial Presidency. New York: Mariner Books. Spragens, William. (1988). Popular Images of American Presidents. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Watson, Robert. (2006). White House Studies Compendium. New York: Nova Publishers. Zelizer, Julian. (2004). The American Congress: The Building of Democracy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Books. Read More