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.