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.
I think you have a misunderstanding of Tafts theory. "Lazy" would not be a term i would use to describe a president, like Taft, who followed the theory. There is still a lot of work to be done as president. Taft was always very busy. Taft was busy though with work that fit into the scope of his powers. So, foreign relations, which is an implied power from the Constitution , were high on Tafts agenda. He was busy with the work he was delegated by the Constitution and Congress, he just didn't waste his time with doing things outside the scope of his theory. Can't call him lazy, hes still the president of the United States
ReplyDeleteI agree that the personality of any given president plays a large role in whether that person would be good as a strong executive. I disagree that under Taft's theory, however, that the President relies on Congress to do most of the work of governing. Under Taft's theory, he would still have a part in governing, but it would be more cooperative and he would only have to yield to Congress if he wanted to do something that wasn't a given power already, but that doesn't mean that he isn't actually doing anything. While I agree that Roosevelt's theory is more suited to the modern presidency and allows the role of the president to achieve the things he needs to achieve at the rate he needs to achieve them, I don't think that means that a president who follows Taft's theory wouldn't do anything and just let Congress do all the work.
ReplyDeleteI was kidding when I called Taft lazy.
ReplyDeleteIf you think that TR had the better view of what a president should be, then how do you prevent the overstepping of power that you saw in Bush's wiretaps? Did some function of government go wrong to allow him to do that or is additional constitutional modification required to ensure that Roosevelt's theory can be applied without further infringements on the average citizen's liberty.
ReplyDelete