The Emasculation of the Presidency

I was born a year and a half into FDR's first term.  The magic 100 days had passed; the Supreme Court had not yet dismantled a number of his initiatives.  Though the country was still in the grip of depression, his actions and the confidence Roosevelt beamed from the White House had lifted Americans' spirit and revived, albeit tentatively, hope that we could find our way forward.

In adolescence, I was an avid fan of Mr. President, a serial radio drama in which Edward Arnold portrayed historical episodes from past Presidencies, revealing only in the last minute the name of the President being portrayed.  I read boy's biographies of Presidents.  I absorbed from my parents an automatic respect for and admiration of our President.

Meanwhile, for the next half century, the American Presidency steadily coalesced power; The Great Depression, WWII, the Atomic Age and Cold War, proliferation of regulatory agencies (authorized by Congress, mind),The Cuban Missile Crisis and Viet Nam, the secrecy of CIA and NSA all swung the pendulum of power toward the Executive and away from Congress.  Mainly, it was the Judiciary that kept the pendulum from over-swinging. 

So perhaps it's no surprise that I admire a President who can lead and speak for all of us, whom Congress respects, who generates awe and affection from our friends and awe and fear from our foes. 

But... for good or ill, the American Presidency is an institution in decline.

Hamilton wrote in Federalist #70 that "Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government."  And "A feeble executive is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government."

Surely, Hamilton and Madison would have been alarmed at the imbalance of power in the '40s, '50's and '60's.  But how would they react today, as the Presidency becomes increasingly toothless, on the verge of emasculation. 

In his landmark work, The American Presidency, Clinton Rossiter's first lecture enumerated the powers of the Presidency.  He listed five chartered by the Constitution; let's take a look.

·         Chief of State, i.e., the ceremonial head of government, who with real of feigned enthusiasm greets dignitaries, bestows medals, pardons turkeys, proclaims holidays, throws out first pitches, and all the rest.  What may seem frivolous is necessary to stay in touch with our people and generate empathy from them for what Rossiter called "a one-man distillation of the American People."  

Reagan played this role to the hilt.  But Clinton's peccadilloes and W's Texas swagger and entangled syntax weakened the role.  Has Obama, simply by illustrating the growing diversity of Americans, inherently fragmented any single father-figure image Chief of State?

·         Chief Executive, i.e., the supervisor of the government, through the powers to appoint and remove, in order -- as the Constitution demands -- to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."  With the explosion of independent regulatory agencies, increasingly complex bills coming out of Congress, signing statements from the White House, and an distressingly activist, reactionary court, can anyone be singly and confidently held accountable for what Hamilton called good administration: Federalist #68, "The true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration."   Remember "your doin' a heckuva job, Brownie"? 

·          Commander in Chief of the military might as well as of the vast and increasingly intrusive intelligence apparatus.  Has Obama weakened this role by his waffling over the "red line" in Syria?  Does anyone take him seriously that military options are still on the table?  Maybe in this case, it is for the best, but no one doubted Lincoln, as Commander in Chief, "clothed in immense power."  Is the Commander still Chief when his Intelligence czar and head of NSA get caught lying to Congress and us about what they are snooping into, and the President has not yet called them to account or fired anyone; is this role, too, being eaten away from within?

·         Chief Diplomat; the two elements of this are formulation of foreign policy and  the conduct of foreign affairs.  In Federalist #75, Hamilton explains the role of the executive as sole representative to foreign governments and of the Senate as constraint and contact with the will of the people.  Two Supreme Court decisions, in 1799 and 1936, confirm those roles.  Yet in recent years, more and more treaties lie languishing for lack of Senate action to either ratify or reject.  No fewer than nine human rights treaties await action, dating back to 1977, and countless other important items like Law of the Seas, environmental treaties, and trade treaties are blocked from consideration, usually by a minority of the Senate.  Moreover, junketing Representatives and Senators, e.g., Lindsey Graham and John McCain visiting with rebels in Syria, muck about in what should be Executive Branch domain. 

Another element of diplomacy is foreign respect.  Consider what has happened as America has screwed up Iraq, been befuddled in Afghanistan, looked rudderless in Syria, become the fall guy for all sides that the Arab Spring has sprouted, and been flaunted and lectured to by Vladmir Vladmirovitch.  

• ·         Chief Legislator.  Congress deals with such a complex myriad of issues, and represents so many conflicting interests, that the Constitutional charge that the President "shall from time to time give to Congress information on the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge expedient" (Article II, Section 3) has become a major function.  It is mentioned in passing in Federalist #77, but in such a way as to indicate it was then almost an afterthought to the authors.  It grew to be a critical role; Roosevelt, Johnson, even Eisenhower, put their stamp on legislation.  But today, Presidential budgets and legislative proposals are virtually DOA with Congress openly disdainful of the office. 

Rossiter  goes on to add five more roles of a President that over time and through the evolution of our democratic republic have become part of his or her job. 

• ·         Chief of The Party.  But look at Obama's inability to corral his own.   Democrats defy his appointments, lobby against candidates (e.g., Larry Summers) and set their own agenda.  Some think this fine, but Obama's unwillingness to play party boss and chief stroker has undermined his authority within his own ranks.
• ·         Voice of The People.  Lincoln and the Roosevelts established this role, but ever since, with easy access to media, many "voices of the people" have diminished the awe and respect for the voice of the President.  The networks sometimes decline to broadcast his oval office addresses.
• ·         Protector of the Peace: this stems from the power to declare emergencies and issue decrees.  The Emergency Banking Act, 1933, and Securities and Exchange Act, 1934, even give the President power to suspend financial activity.  But the concentration of financial power, lobbying pressure and campaign contributions have nullified such authority.  Yes, the President still can declare emergency in case of natural disasters, but not likely man-made ones.
• ·         Manager of Prosperity.  The Full Employment Act, the Council of Economic Advisors, the annual Economic Report and all the rest appear to create this role for him or her -- but it is, of course, an impossible expectation to be lived up to.  No President has the power today to "manage" our economy, and the more they try, the more impotent they appear.
• ·         Leader of the Free World.  Like it or not, sought or not, this role was thrust upon our President in 1945 and doubly so in 1989.  But today?  A mockery... a third of the world resists us, another third dislikes us and the rest is in doubt about our leadership after the Iran-Contra scandal, the humbling on 9/11, the Bush/Cheney folly of Iraq, the quagmire of Afghanistan, and the impressive rise of a China who appears able to get things done.

One might say that it is an impossible job.  But nonetheless, in all ten roles, the American Presidency is increasingly tarnished, increasingly emasculated.  To many, this is not unwelcome.  To my libertarian friends, all government is too powerful, Executive and Congress.  And they like the tilt of the Supreme Court (though they should beware its taste for corporate libertarians.)  But to others, it is a regrettable trend.  I, for one, am distressed.

Can this be reversed?  Yes, certainly the public's congenital willingness to embrace magnetic personalities means another avuncular Reagan might appear to reverse the decline, as he did our Nixon/Ford/Carter malaise.  A new national crisis might give rise to another Lincoln or FDR.  But in the meantime, the American Presidency is being emasculated by our political incapacity (gerrymandered safe seats and money politics), by self-inflicted wounds (like Bush/Cheney's vendetta against Saddam Hussein), by lack of understanding what a President must be and do (Obama?), and by world affairs beyond our ken (the Arab Spring, Islamic fundamentalism, the rise of China.) Are we satisfied with this -- to have a string of Buchanans or Hardings?

No.  The American Presidency is a unique institution, the finest creation of the Constitutional Convention.  We need to reverse the emasculation and restore the presidency in power and prestige for I believe an effective and energetic  President is necessary to the continuing productivity, confidence and unity of America.