Sam Tanenhaus, writer at-large at the "New York Times", has penned a column in today's times
that was designed to make a splash even though it is a complete misread
of the power of the modern presidency as well as the historical
development of presidential power. In a nutshell, I have not stopped
scratching my head at the thesis and facts grounded in the article itself.
The
overall frame of his argument is the conflict in Syria and the
potential for US involvement. Tanenhaus believes that President Obama
going to Congress to receive authorization to use force to stop the
Syrian regime from using chemical weapons against its citizenry
represents a diminishing of the type of power modern presidents wield.
In fact, his actions are not just out of step with recent presidents,
but Tanenhaus also suggests that Obama's actions "possibly jeopardize
the ability of future presidents to pursue ambitious foreign policy
objectives." Wow.
Tanenhaus then proceeds to his main argument:
Obama "...holds office at a time when the presidency itself has ceded
much of its power and authority to Congress." His evidence? Clinton's
complaint that the "presidency still mattered" following the 1994
Republican Revolution; George W. Bush's claim that the 2004 victory gave
him capital that he intended to spend, where he promised Social
Security and immigration reform, and both failed spectacularly in
Congress.
Further proof of a decline in presidential power can be
found in popular culture. The evidence? HBO's comedy "Veep" and
Netflix's mini-series "House of Cards". In the former, presidential
power decline comes in a president who is never seen, and in the latter
political power is vested not in the president, but instead the House
majority whip. I am not making this up.
Then there is divided
government ("...a staple of American politics for many years") which
has brought into the Congress ideologically pure representatives who
buck the type of charm offensive that was a staple of the Reagan
presidency (schmoozing on the yacht "Sequioa"
or smoking cigars with Tip O'Neill following the budget vote in 1981).
Further, even though the national security powers of the president have
gown "mightily", Tanenhaus claims that Obama's "...decision to go to
Congress arguably shows a greater deference on war and peace than any
president since Franklin D. Roosevelt."
It is hard to sum up all the things wrong with this article, but let me focus on a few.
First,
it is not reflective of the realities of the last 50 years. Take the
last quote about presidential deference. President Obama is not asking
for a declaration of war, which is what the Constitution says must
happen, nor is he accepting the final decision of Congress. In fact,
Tanenhaus selectively quotes from the President when he quotes Obama as
saying: "I'm the president of the world's oldest constitutional
democracy...[we must respect] members of Congress who want their voices
to be heard." In reality, Obama said this, but then went on to say:
"Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military
action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the
country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be
even more effective." In fact, every president since FDR has suggested
the need for congressional authorization, but every president has also
qualified this with the stronger assertion that absence the
authorization, the president can still use force. George H.W. Bush got
Congress to authorize the invasion of Kuwait in what many hailed
as a finer moment in our constitutional democracy (because it was a
contentious debate and vote), but only after Bush had sent 500,000
troops to Saudia Arabia. If you believe for one moment that if Congress
had rejected the authorization, that Bush would have packed up and come
home, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
Second,
Tanenhaus misreads our own history in the development of the
presidency. He throws in an odd discussion of the views of Woodrow
Wilson to buttress the notion that the decline of presidential power is
rooted in the design of the Constitution. Tanenhaus refers to Wilson's
doctoral dissertation, published at the end of the 19th century, and
titled "Congressional Government".
He notes that Wilson's dissertation was an explanation of why the
presidency was so weak (and aside from a few Presidents, such as
Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln, it was a weak institution). Wilson
argued for a radical constitutional redesign to make our system more
like the European parliamentary system given that the presidency was a
non-essential institution. 19th century presidents answered their own
mail, gave guided tours of the White House, paid for their own staff,
and were constantly at war with the congressional partisans in the
Cabinet and in the Office of the Vice President. But by the time Wilson
became president, his view of presidential power radically shifted,
largely because of what Teddy Roosevelt accomplished. Wilson harnessed
the "rhetorical" powers of the presidency by bringing back the public
lecturing of the Congress in the State of the Union Address. Tanenhaus
claims that Wilson's two terms represent the "first modern instance of
the 'imperial presidency', though not many students of the presidency
would agree. Even more confusing: All of the quotes that Tanenhaus uses
from Wilson on the presidency came before Wilson was actually president!
I
really am not sure what has shaped Tanenhaus's view of modern
presidential power, but let me explain what I know from both my reading
and my own research. The muscular presidency has been on a steroid
induced power trip for nearly 40 years now. In large part, the effects
of Vietnam AND Watergate damaged the Ford and Carter presidencies
ability to make the process work like it should. If Tanenhaus wrote
this article in 1978, I would have made it required reading for my
students. But Reagan, who picked up on how Ford and Carter made things
work by unilateral means, set to the task of institutionalizing
Presidential Unilateralism. The basis of Presidential Unilateralism
suggests that when the system boxes you in, you look for independent
ways to expand the box, or what my colleague Ryan Barilleaux eloquently
refers to as "Venture Constitutionalism".
Add on to Vietnam and Watergate the paralysis of polarization coupled
with a hostile media, and you get presidents who start announcing weird
ideals such as the "Unitary Executive"
Theory of Presidential Power--a theory that suggests the Constitution
signs off of presidential unilateralism. And with it you get the
heightened use of signing statements, executive orders, proclamations,
and so on.
In sum, I cannot understand how Tanenhaus squares his
view of presidential power with that of reality, because reality tells
us that the president can independently order the assassination of American citizens.
Or can refuse to recognize or enforce over a 100 provisions of law
contained in bills he has signed into law. Or can do the multitude of
things we have learned in the intelligence leaks of the last several
months.
If Tanenhaus is going to continue to write on the
presidency, then I suggest he attend a class on the presidency taught at
any college in the United States. In fact, if he acts now, I would be
happy to send him my syllabus from my undergraduate course on the
American Presidency. Free of charge.
