Schlesinger for President 2012

Arthur Schlesinger’s book, War and the American Presidency, was published around the time of the 2004 Presidential Election, and by no coincidence criticizes the idea (and execution) of “preemptive war”, since at the time America was faced with the choice of whether or not it should perpetuate war in Iraq under the Bush Administration’s second term, or turn a new leaf by electing a new leader. Unfortunately, the American people did not collectively realize their government’s mistakes and voted to continue America’s unsuccessful stint in Iraq, and in doing so, gave Schlesinger’s book even more weight through the events that unfolded as a cause of this decision. Schlesinger’s main argument was that although the military has intelligence and capabilities to achieve great things, it could only do so to achieve limited goals that must be realistic and valid. He also examines a variety of aspects that affected the way the war in Iraq was framed, but specifically focuses on how the government and the media seemed to work together to portray the war as both a realistic endeavor and an action backed by valid reasons.

Schlesinger first attributes the idea of “preemptive war” to American isolationism, and the general cultural belief Americans feel when it comes to conflict, they are better off alone than with the help of other nations. He goes further in pointing out how isolationism led to Bush’s unilateral approach to combat, which ended up depriving the US military, media, government, and most importantly, people of actual facts about the invasion and if any other approaches were possible. From there on, the book discusses a variety of ways in which the Bush Doctrine set the US up for failure on a global scale with not only foreign relations, but with national patriotism. Countries that used to praise the United States now turned away with contempt, while the American people continued to operate under false pretenses in their blind patriotism. In his discussion about how patriotism is supposed to be perceived, Schlesinger states that, “true patriotism consists of living up to a nation’s highest ideals” and that the US allowed itself to divert away from that since everyone was reluctant to admit any faults in these operations at the risk of seeming unpatriotic. By monopolizing the public’s opinion through the media, and keeping out foreign opinions that criticized his actions, the Bush Doctrine made the United States look like a global bully with no morals and no respect for history. According to Schlesinger, this disrespect to its own heritage created an imperial image of the US because not only did we forget the Alien and Sedition Acts, the internment camps of Japanese and Italian Americans, and the Palmer raids, but we forgot how our own people felt when we were on the receiving end of the same kind of treatment. In summation, the most valuable point of this book is that wars increase executive power because they allow the President to manipulate any and all information about the war at hand.

As someone studying journalism, reading this book made me feel ashamed of our government and our media, as this “preemptive war” tactic was a textbook definition of indexing (the tendency of the media to gravitate towards powerful sources for information and heavily depending on the government). I found myself nodding to myself as I read the section discussing how shocking it was that even the New York Times (!) wouldn’t go against the Bush Doctrine in criticizing what was about to happen. What’s more, it is completely illogical to me (and was illogical at the time, even though I was an uninformed high school freshman) that a leader can shove his country into an uninformed war so readily.

There was a time when the media and government to created propaganda to beat the Nazis while raising national morale, but it came at a cost as we turned our backs to internment camps and war crimes like the bombing of Dresden. Clearly, we had not learned our lesson and allowed Iraq to happen, and torture to occur. I completely agree with Schlesinger that the Bush Administration’s manipulation of the way our society operates is ruining our nation’s ideals, and hope our nation will finally realize that we can’t exist as a nation of one opinion who believe we are the only ones who matter in the world.

Justice Jackson-1, Harry Truman- 0

The extent of presidential power is always in question—we see this with President Obama’s desire to change healthcare; saw it with President George W. Bush wanting to invade Iraq; and probably every president before them. American Presidents seem to come to a political double bind when performing their duty, since his constituents (and sometimes Congress) want a leader who is willing to make difficult decisions but do not want him to overstep his boundaries, whatever those may be.

The Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer ruling examined how far Presidential power could go in the realm of business. This case limited the power of the President of the United States in taking private property without the authority of Congress or his outlined power in the Constitution (during the time it regarded President Harry Truman). Justice Jackson’s three pointed opinion is the most cited opinion from this case regarding the relationship between the executive and legislative branches, stating that the relationship falls into one of the following three categories:
1. Cases in which the President was acting with authority from Congress
2. Cases in which Congress had remained silent with regards to Presidential actions
3. Cases in which the President defied Congress (Truman was put in this category)
This breakdown of executive authority can be explained as a balancing act. The first case exemplifies the ideal situation of having both the executive and the legislative branches working together to achieve a consensus. This case would probably be the poster child of checks and balances at work because it would allow more than just the president to make important decisions; therefore hopefully guaranteeing the avoidance of making unfavorable wills into reality. The second case depicts the balance in government being skewed towards the executive, which is probably what Truman wanted, but constitutionally cannot have. This situation blurs the line between the two branches of government since it erases the legislative branch’s responsibility of keeping the executive in line. If this case were a reality, there would probably be no need to give Congress any legislative powers at all since the President would just run them. The final case would probably make the Founding Fathers roll in their graves considering it would essentially mean the President was behaving according to his own will, rather than on behalf of his constituents and without consultation of his governmental colleagues.

While these cases may involve the legislative and executive branches more directly than the judiciary, the law does have significant say in this statement as well. As Justice Jackson emphasized that no one is immune from the law, not even the President of the United States, and that while the responsibilities of the branches may inherently overlap, “the executive, apart from recommendation and the veto has no legislative power”. In this sense, Jackson pointed out how although the office of the President hold symbolic power, it does not necessarily translate into actual superiority within the government. This is also specifically stated in the Constitution as a check on the executive from taking over legislative responsibilities. Jackson also made a critical point of saying how if this boundary is overstepped, no one will know its limits and then the entire order of not only the government, but the country, will be disjointedly unpredictable, undemocratic, and even dangerous because of its lack of limits. However, Jackson did not leave out the judiciary in his warning by implying that although these discrepancies may occur, the courts cannot overstep their boundary in rectifying them without consulting the other two branches either.

In summary, Justice Jackson is not denying that there is an ambiguous quality to the way the checks and balances were expressed in the constitution. What he is implying is that the only way to avoid having these vague phrases cause problems is to allow the branches of government to retain their right to discuss their perceived powers among one another, no matter how tedious the process may be.

US Foreign Policy: How History Repeats Itself

The current situation in Libya under the Obama administration carries remnants of the turmoil that happened in Kosovo when Clinton was in office, as both conflicts involve mass killings of people under autocratic rulers that threaten life and liberty in surrounding countries. To justify America’s involvement in Kosovo, Clinton pointed out that it is America’s duty, (along with NATO), to intervene when people are being murdered in mass numbers due to ethnic differences, especially when this conflict could spill over into vulnerable surrounding countries. Similarly, Obama’s speech about involvement in Libya mentioned that the decision to intervene was a moral one that again, would be supported by NATO alliances, and again, served international interest in suppressing the spillage of violence to unstable neighboring regions like Egypt. Stylistically, both presidents did not hesitate to put a face on who was the “bad guy” in the situation by calling out Gaddafi and Milosevic as the culprits for the bloodshed. Both Clinton and Obama also attempted to seek sympathy from the American public by aligning approachable similarities to the targets of violence to more manageable US proportions (after all, it is much easier to imagine Charlotte, North Carolina or the entire state of Nebraska ceasing to exist rather than some population of people thousands of miles away).

Similarities aside, Clinton talked around exactly how the US was planning on achieving peace in Kosovo and what exactly was the concrete mission once peace was achieved. On the other hand, clearly tired of expanding American forces into foreign involvements (“we had been down that road before in Iraq”), Obama stated that no troops would be put on the ground and that the No Fly Zone was pretty much the extent of America’s efforts in Libya. Where Clinton urged Americans to accept the investment of rebuilding Kosovo for the greater well-being of Europe, Obama stated that the Libyan people need to have the opportunity to decide for themselves what kind of government and existence they want to have without hovering foreign intervention.

That being said, neither president seemed to be placing a doctrine into effect. Clinton’s situation with Kosovo came at a time when many other ethnic issues were happening around the world. Essentially, he was faced with picking which battles to fight that would end up being beneficial for NATO’s existence, which is why Rwanda, sadly, had little place in his agenda. Obama’s hesitant attitude in the Libyan conflict does not seem to set down a foreign policy doctrine either; rather it reflects the reality of America’s current position in foreign relations. In the past decade, America has been involved in two wars in the Middle East with its share of controversies and mishaps. The war in Iraq did little to exalt the US on the global stage, so intervening more forcefully in Libya would have made America look like it “hadn’t learned anything” from Iraq, while probably sparking more dissent from people who already think Americans just want to take over the world. Also, fiscally, America probably can’t afford to spend any more money than it has on military projects abroad, so in this way Obama can show America’s support for the Libyan Revolution (and perhaps, symbolically to the other revolutions happening in the region) in a frugal way.

This discussion leads to the question of how should the United States determine when to involve itself in conflicts abroad and when should it steer clear of such associations. President Clinton seemed to put it best in articulating the difference between people having violent disagreements in their own lands, and people systematically attempting to rid the world of a certain race or ethnicity of people based on these disagreements while threatening America’s well-being (even if its by extension through threatening Europe). Also, America’s allies are strategic and not limited to European nations, as is the case with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is one of the US’s key allies in the Middle East, and involvements in Bahrain would have tested that allegiance if not destroyed it. Although it is extremely sad and shameful to admit, we cannot be a nation of do-gooders all the time when faced with our own domestic problems—after a while the money DOES run out, and then what do we do?

Supreme Court Justices = Political Pariahs?

In our democratic society, the Supreme Court holds a special place in the government as the defender of freedom and general lawful goodness, and we, the people, like to think of them as “political monks” devoid of any party alliances. However, because Presidents appoint the judges, it is necessary to remember that they are indeed people, and more importantly, people with opinions.

In the past, Supreme Court Justices were politicians themselves, as seen in the example of President Taft’s ability to be the 27th President of the United States and then becoming the tenth Supreme Court Justice. All of this changed with Richard Nixon’s belief that the President should appoint Justices based on merit rather than solely political reputation. The current route to becoming a Supreme Court Justice generally follows the following steps, (remember Justices are appointed for life):

- There is an opening in the Supreme Court (resignation or death of another Justice)
- The president nominates a Judge he believes to be worthy for the position, typically discussing his choice with other prominent Congress people
- The nomination is then sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which collects information about the nominee. This information includes background checks as well as a review of his or her rulings and written legal opinions/reviews
- The Judiciary Committee then holds a hearing on the nominee to interview him or her, while also allowing witnesses to speak in favor or against the nomination
- Then the Judiciary Committee votes on the nomination and makes its recommendation to the entire Senate in favor/against/inconclusive about the recommendation of what to do with the nomination
- The Senate debates the nomination and a 3/5-majority vote is necessary to end the debate (called the cloture vote). This vote can also be filibustered for delay.
- After the debate officially ends, the Senate votes on the nomination, the confirmation of which requires a majority of the senators’ votes.
- The Judge is then (hopefully in the eyes of the President) the newest addition to the Supreme Court.

It is important to note that although the President has the power to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, the end vote is still in the hands of the Senate. This of course, may alter the President’s choice because typically the Senate would vote along party lines (Republicans favoring a conservative judge and Democrats favoring a more liberal or moderate one), and it is unusual for a President to serve his term during his party’s majority sitting in the Senate. For this reason, dissent from the Senate can be problematic for the President as was seen during Clinton’s series of unsuccessful attempts to pass his nominations throughout both his terms against the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee—24 of his nominations from various federate appellate judgeships were not approved.

On paper, this process may seem slightly obnoxious as though all the power is vested within the Senate who is probably the opposing party of the President. However, although this process seems tedious and too political, it shows the legislative check on the executive, which in theory, works to protect our government’s function. Without Senate intervention, the President would be able to appoint whomever he thought would execute his interpretations of the law, thereby manipulating the government to work solely in his favor and skewing the power of the branches of government. Even so, it seems strange that while the people get to vote for who holds positions in the other two branches, when it comes to the judiciary they are completely left out of the equation—you’d think that when it comes to things that people should have an opinion on, voting for those who set the guidelines for laws that directly affect people’s lives would be at the top of the list, but apparently that is not the case. Even so, this method of choosing judges seems more legitimate than passing around the same politicians from branch to branch, because at least this way legal professionals will be ensured to serve the position, not someone who is basing decisions off of personal political-infused ideology.

This isn’t to say that the justices actually are political pariahs, because they are not. In fact, the Supreme Court typically votes along party lines and ideologies—conservative judges usually support Republicans and more liberal judges support Democrats. For example, in 2006, the Supreme Court was split along party lines over Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency which debated whether the EPA had authority to “regulate motor vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide” under the Clean Air Act and by extension, would direct if the government had any responsibility to lessen global warming. The Court held that greenhouse gasses are pollutants and the EPA may regulate their emission. The judges who were supporting this decision and voting along Democratic party lines were Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The dissent (and alignment with the Republicans) came from Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. This shows that the cases presented do not necessarily need to be completely controversial like Wade v. Roe to cause Justices to vote along party lines, thereby proving that judges’ personal political leanings do come into play, even if not often.

Representation in Our Nation

Often in American politics, people forget that being a government official is actually a job. No matter if you agree or disagree with party platforms, have unaddressed complaints toward your representative, or have idealistic views of how a government should be organized, it is necessary to realize that everyone who is a representative in our American government is working at a job—President included. Like any other job, being the President of a country requires a person to fulfill certain qualifications with regards to education and experience, so while it is nice to believe that anyone can be the next President of the United States, logically it probably won’t happen. This doesn’t mean that the US President always has to be some kind of snobby elitist, but whoever is filling the role does need to have a completed a higher level of education (which significantly cuts down the amount of capable people available for the position).

So, why ramble about who should be President? Well, the President is generally regarded as the primary representative of the American people, and hopefully whoever is the President is also an educated and capable person. A presidential representative should be someone who serves as a middle ground between the people and the government and brings each group’s opinions/actions to face one another in hopes of working out a compromise. So far in our history, the president is (typically) someone who is educated about the way the government operates but is also informed about what the general public sentiment is. Therefore, the president should act as the moderator between the two groups and put forth initiatives that could work out greater compromises between the two. In doing this, the president would also serve as the face of the United States to the rest of the world. 

In my opinion, the most useful way of being such a representative is for the President to be a politico. As opposed to state representatives or Senators, the President has a variety of national and international issues to deal with. Because of the vastness of his representation, there is really no way for him to be a delegate as that would be both inefficient and pretty much impossible since people are not all equally educated on all issues and there is no way to make everyone reach a consensus as to what needs to be done.

(Ohhhhh that's where Egypt is!)

According to msnbc.com, younger generations of Americans are “shaky on geography” (both national and international geography, I might add) and are uninterested in the news as well as international issues. These are future voters who would be misinforming the president in his decisions, if he was a strictly delegate representative. (People who can’t find Iraq on a map probably shouldn’t be the ones the President should turn to before he decides to randomly invade it.) To sum it up—if millions of people actually vote for you to be the leader and face of a country, you better be educated enough to make informed decisions and understand their repercussions. (For more scary stats on how uneducated we are, go here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591413/ns/us_news-education/) 

The risk of having a politico president would be just that—can one person be the ultimate deciding factor in compromises between the people in its government? Putting too much power in one person’s hands was a huge phobia of the Framers of the Constitution that still resonates today. Too much power would turn the politico into a trustee, which is typically unfavorable to the American people. Also, there might be a discrepancy in the level of importance of issues being brought up by the people and Congress thereby hindering the compromise process the President would try to initiate. For example—while the public might be more interested in social issues, the government might want to focus on the country’s fiscal problems first. In organizing what should be addressed when, it would be difficult for the President to pick whom to “side” with. Also, it could be difficult to determine who should execute proposals—allowing the president to make the final decision on an issue contradicts the whole existence of the Congress as specific representatives in certain states/communities.

Finally, in discussing Presidential representation, the topic of the president’s physical representation cannot be ignored. While descriptive representation sounds good on paper, whenever someone’s demographics are brought into representation there is always the chance that someone will feel left out or feel uncomfortable, especially when the representative has an incredibly diverse public. This is why substantive representation is more favorable as it realizes constituent’s needs over physical appearance/demographics. While minorities often feel like they are more recognized if a representative even symbolically represents them, in my opinion this doesn’t do their representation justice as that person would basically only show up to be seen, not actually act in favor of those he is representing. By solely using representation as a means to be seen a symbolic representative is not completely fulfilling the job he was elected to do. 

The Tubs and Teddy Bears Debate...

Before The Daily Show and The Colbert Report were around to critique presidents about how they exercised their power, the former and current presidents had to do it the old fashioned way— through passive aggressive shout outs in speeches and autobiographies. The “debate” between William Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt regarding the extent of presidential power is one such shout out.

In his autobiography, Roosevelt distinguished two types of presidents—Buchanans and Lincolns, describing the first as the type to restrain their powers to what is strictly derived from the Constitution and the second as the kind who would use the office to push the limits of power without doing anything specifically unconstitutional. Of course, Roosevelt saw himself as a “Lincoln President” who evolved the presidential office into a meaningful position and criticized Taft for being a “Buchanan President” who didn’t do much in office.

If you mentally compare the two presidents for what they were truly best known for most people would probably think of something like this…

OR

…but apparently these two men contributed more to our country than wider bath tubs and plush fuzzies.

The Stewardship Theory

According to Roosevelt’s view, a “Lincoln President” like himself thought it necessary by not only “his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws”.  Under Roosevelt’s interpretation, this meant he had the authority to continue the war in the Philippines (despite unfavorable casualty results); order warships and marines to take a province from Colombia in order to build the Panama Canal (despite the fact that Colombia was a weak country and military intervention was probably unnecessary); and meddling in a handful of other foreign struggles that had little to no relevance to America at the time. While some viewed Roosevelt’s approach as overly forceful and an attempt to use “might makes right” rhetoric, others praised him for asserting American power in international relations. If anything, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (i.e. America should be able to invade surrounding countries in order to “maintain their economic stabilities”) in is a testament to an American mentality that still exists today.

The Literalist Theory (Limited Presidential Power)

Needless to say Taft’s “Buchanan” approach to presidential power was the opposite of Roosevelt’s in that he opposed its expansion. In Taft’s opinion (and practice) a president shouldn’t exercise powers that are not “fairly and reasonably” explained as necessary according to the Constitution and Congress. More specifically, Taft stated, “…[presidential] power does not exist if not expressed in the Constitution”. Although he admitted that the Executive Branch’s duties are ambiguously described in the Constitution, he made a point of distinguishing the dangerous power this ambiguity left—a president could either neglect his duties or enlarge his power. The latter option was clearly aimed at Roosevelt’s practices, which Taft further addressed in saying how the “whatever isn’t legislative or judiciary is executive” approach makes the president act as a despot. All of this isn’t to say that Taft was a simply a lazy man who got stuck in his bathtub and contributed nothing else to American history. Taft also looked after American economic interests in Latin America and ordered troops to protect these interests under the executive power but he did so with the approval of Congress as opposed to his own whims.

Thoughts…

Being somewhat of an indecisive person, I can see where both men are coming from and agree with parts of both of their policies. However, it seems irrelevant to pick which one I would agree with more since I believe different situations call for different approaches. I think under George W. Bush the American Presidency resembled what Roosevelt had in mind for presidential power, and currently our government under Obama is more Taft-ish in attempting to metaphorically “think” more before acting out internationally. In other words, I think there are times when the President should take it upon himself to make decisions and there are other times when he should lay low—it all depends on the setting under which he’s operating.

For example—when GWB was in power, no one could have predicted (okay, the average person could not have predicted) that our country would be the target of a terrorist attack as large as that of 9/11. People were angry, the international community was shocked, and our President as the symbolic leader of our nation, had to make an executive decision about how we should act. In cases such as this, bringing a debate about retaliation to Congress would be time consuming and fruitless, so the President and his international advisors had to carry the burden of formulating a plan of action. On the flip side, the same president took this responsibility too far in essentially creating another war with a barely threatening foreign nation and causing a chain reaction of more terrorism occurring. In this sense, acting without consulting with Congress bore unfavorable results including the lowest presidential approval ratings in history and an economic recession that rippled across the globe.

However, the unfavorable conditions left by Bush allowed for the Taft-ish policies of Obama to be elected into office. As of now, the Obama Administration takes care in how they present themselves and America to foreign nations so that we do not look like the bullies we were perceived to be under the GWB Administration’s Roosevelt-esque power trip. Some would say that as a person, Obama was elected for the sole reason of showing the world how accepting and forward thinking the American people are. Currently, Obama’s main concern is to work with Congress as much as possible in order to unite his constituency, which could be interpreted as a modern take on what Taft was trying to accomplish. Just like Taft, this isn’t to say that Obama won’t take initiative to propose goals he would like to see achieved by the government, but he will make it a priority to work with the government as a whole to achieve them.

All in all, I think the kind of presidential power the country should operate fluctuates with every elected president since the country is never in a stagnant situation globally or internally. I do not think personality traits should play a huge role since initiative, cooperation, and tactfulness are all qualities that (hopefully) every Presidential candidate worthy of the title already possesses.

Multitasking is a National Effort...

While watching the State of the Union address, I couldn’t help being slightly cynical about everything Obama was proposing and hoping our country could achieve. Don’t get me wrong—I like Obama, he was the first President I voted for as a registered voter and have always given him the benefit of the doubt through the difficult decisions of his presidency, but the agenda he proposed for the coming years struck me as overly ambitious. Realistically, I understand that the purpose of the State of the Union in modern times is for the President to set the agenda for things he would like to work on with Congress. However, I think the fact that it is such a public address, (as a component of Neustadt’s “self-executed order”) gives it the ability to get people’s hopes up and possibly lead to disappointment if the proposed goals aren’t achieved.

Even so, I appreciated the tone Obama set for our country and society, especially with his opening statement of “we should not only focus on sitting here together tonight, but working together tomorrow”. The main points Obama focused on were the promotion of innovation, education developments, the literal and metaphorical rebuilding of America, fiscal responsibility, government reform, and general improvement of our international presence.The discussion of innovation promotion had somewhat of a Cold War-esque taste to it, since it was brought up in a competition mentality against other countries’ achievements but the overarching goal was related to environmental policies. The most specific goal mentioned was to eliminate tax funding for oil companies and transfer that funding to the development of clean fuel. By 2035 President Obama aims to have 80% of our electricity derived from clean energy sources.Education promotion was probably the agenda component I feel the most strongly about but again, a Cold War-esque competition rhetoric was employed. The President stated that we must promote math and science in the classroom and urged families to take responsibility for promoting the love for knowledge in their children’s interests. Obama appealed to older students through mentioning the implementation of a permanent tuition tax credit to promote college affordability and revitalizing community colleges. Rebuilding America took on a literal and metaphorical meaning. Obama said  we needed to not only rebuild or nation’s infrastructure and therefore provide a multitude of jobs for people, but also reform the way we interact with overseas powers and reforming our policies, like healthcare. Fiscal responsibility was aimed at the immense amount of debt our country still owes which is supposedly going to be aided by cuts on military spending and the elimination for tax breaks for millionaires. The topic of governmental reform exemplified the definition of presidential power since Obama said he would veto any legislation that contained earmarks. Since Obama is up for re-election in about a year, this authoritative stance is important for him to establish somewhat of a resume of things he has accomplished while in power that he can later use in debates/the election process.

Overall, I felt like the dates Obama set as the end points for the effects of his proposals were silly. No one is going to hold him accountable for those dates since he will be long out of power by then. I also don’t know how much of this agenda he will be able to accomplish if we implement the cuts on domestic spending since it seems like too much will be going on at the same time. Finally, as a point brought up in Neustadt’s “self-executed” order, I feel like Obama needed to reevaluate if the officials he is proposing all of this to are actually able to execute his agenda since their personal opinions on the issues could vary and they may just be unable to get all of this accomplished at the same time. In this state of the union, Obama was asking our Congress to multitask like never before.