Loyal Followers,
I'm pretty sure I did rather poorly on the most recent quiz. As such, I will probably have to take this post a little more seriously...
The President should probably act primarily as a trustee. The President is chosen by the people (or at least the electors that they choose), and his job involves sophisticated issues that the voters do not have the time or inclination to study at length. Therefore, the President must make his own decisions, with the help of his conscience, his intellect, and his advisors.
Naturally, sometimes the people will be particularly passionate about an issue, especially issues with which they are quite familiar, such as education. In these situations, the President will be forced to act as a delegate, in accordance with his constituent's wishes. Therefore, ultimately all Presidents are politicos. However, I would prefer to see Presidents make principled decisions, even when they are unpopular, more often than most Presidents do. In the modern era, thanks to the "permanent campaign" that politics has become, the executive branch seems to govern based on polls, at least on issues that really resonate with the public. As I said, all Presidents and most politicians are politicos, but they seem to lean too far to the delegate side of the equation.
On certain issues, all Presidents need to act as delegates. For example, I just denounced the tendency of the modern President to only do what is popular, but in 2008, when President Bush supported the bank bailout in opposition to public opinion, he did the right thing. It hurts a little bit to say this, because I think Bush was generally a terrible President, but the bank bailout was good policy. For example, in January 2009, 61% of Americans opposed completing TARP by spending the rest of the money allocated for the program (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/16/poll-tarp-not-working-dont-spend-more-americans-say/). TARP was necessary, even though nobody liked the idea, and it kept our economy from falling into a ditch. Times are rough now, but they could be a lot worse. Bush's actions in 2008 seem to confirm the notion that Presidents are unlikely to respond to public opinion when they are quite unpopular, as Bush was in 2008. Bush could do whatever he wanted, because it didn't really matter, people hated him regardless.
When it comes to the Presidency, we really don't need our leader to be descriptively representative. The Presidency is a unique office. We have one President at a time, and he is the most powerful person in the world. He must necessarily be, as Jon Stewart put it, "embarrassingly superior" to most Americans. I want my President to be unusually smart, compassionate, and principled. If he is a man of the people, that will probably help him be more compassionate, but I don't need him to be the kind of guy I want to get a beer with. What I'm looking for from a President is substantive representation. The President needs to represent the entire country, and no individual could do that in a descriptive sense. Finally, I think he should focus most of all on representing the disadvantaged. The people to whom the government has the most responsibility are those who are down on their luck. This especially includes those under government custody: prisoners and other institutionalized people. Luckily for the middle and upper classes, disadvantaged people don't vote in large numbers, so this remains an unlikely prospect.
Love,
FKW
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Roosevelt and Taft
The first thing to consider is that this disagreement was between Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, not FDR and Robert Taft. Confusion about this issue could derail the entire discussion.
Essentially, TR argues that the President can (and often should!) do whatever the Constitution does not prohibit him from doing. The President is a "steward" who acts in the interest what TR charmingly referred to as "the plain people" (128). TR believes in a President who slaps around neighboring countries and digs canals, all in the name of progress, because progress is what America is all about. TR was America's sweetheart, and he coined the term "bully pulpit" in reference to the Presidency. As Nelson explains, Roosevelt actively used this pulpit by going straight to the public to put pressure on Congress. According to Roosevelt, other Presidents, including Taft, saw the President as the "servant of Congress" while he considered himself a servant of "the people."
The strength of Roosevelt's position derives from his personality. Having a strong executive is great when your President is a principled dynamo like TR, who occasionally got carried away, but always acted in good faith. However, an equally ambitious but less principled President, like Nixon, can create some really interesting problems for the country.
According to our fattest President, Mr. Taft, the President should really only do the things that the Constitution directly requires of him. Taft argues for a restrained executive who defers to Congress to do most of the work of governing.
The greatest strength of Taft's argument is that it allowed an exceptionally lazy person to serve as President in the era before the President acquired a large staff to do his job for him. Today, this strength is no longer relevant, as demonstrated by the "Imperial Presidency" of the supremely lazy George W. Bush, who spent many days on his Texas ranch. Taft also argues that if the President is too strong, in times of trouble, he might get away with acting arbitrarily and invade the rights of individuals. In this case, GW Bush's administration confirms Taft's argument. Bush's post-9/11 wiretapping program was obviously inappropriate and violated individuals' rights to privacy.
My stance on the issue is that, for better or for worse, TR won the argument. Congress is still important, but the President usually runs the show.
Essentially, TR argues that the President can (and often should!) do whatever the Constitution does not prohibit him from doing. The President is a "steward" who acts in the interest what TR charmingly referred to as "the plain people" (128). TR believes in a President who slaps around neighboring countries and digs canals, all in the name of progress, because progress is what America is all about. TR was America's sweetheart, and he coined the term "bully pulpit" in reference to the Presidency. As Nelson explains, Roosevelt actively used this pulpit by going straight to the public to put pressure on Congress. According to Roosevelt, other Presidents, including Taft, saw the President as the "servant of Congress" while he considered himself a servant of "the people."
The strength of Roosevelt's position derives from his personality. Having a strong executive is great when your President is a principled dynamo like TR, who occasionally got carried away, but always acted in good faith. However, an equally ambitious but less principled President, like Nixon, can create some really interesting problems for the country.
According to our fattest President, Mr. Taft, the President should really only do the things that the Constitution directly requires of him. Taft argues for a restrained executive who defers to Congress to do most of the work of governing.
The greatest strength of Taft's argument is that it allowed an exceptionally lazy person to serve as President in the era before the President acquired a large staff to do his job for him. Today, this strength is no longer relevant, as demonstrated by the "Imperial Presidency" of the supremely lazy George W. Bush, who spent many days on his Texas ranch. Taft also argues that if the President is too strong, in times of trouble, he might get away with acting arbitrarily and invade the rights of individuals. In this case, GW Bush's administration confirms Taft's argument. Bush's post-9/11 wiretapping program was obviously inappropriate and violated individuals' rights to privacy.
My stance on the issue is that, for better or for worse, TR won the argument. Congress is still important, but the President usually runs the show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)