Arthur Schlesinger focuses his book around the how presidents use overuse their presidential power during war time. Although he discusses several different presidencies, he always comes back to George W. Bush. Although each chapter appears to have it’s own point and thesis, the point that seemed the strongest and stuck with me long after I finished the book was Bush’s take on Iraq. Presidents are supposed to prevent war, Schlesinger said. He said presidents use peace through prevention of war as a way to manage war, but Bush used peace through preventive war. While most presidents try to avoid it, Bush saw was as a way to keep the American people safe.
Bush did this quietly so that the United States and the world did not reject this idea. Preventive war had been suggested before, but it had been reject. President Truman once said, “I have always been opposed, even to the thought of such a war. There is nothing more foolish than to think that war can be stopped by war. You don’t ‘prevent’ anything by war except peace. However, Bush chose to use the word preemptive war, which many people were able to swallow. Schlesinger said the only difference between preemptive and preventive war is illegality and legality.
In light of Sept. 11, Schlesinger admits that a war with Afghanistan was necessary since the Taliban were not going to turn over Osama Bin Laden. However, the Iraq war was not necessary, Schlesinger argued and it was a sign of a unilateral presidency. Schlesinger makes a good point when he says the war against Iraq was a choice President Bush made. It was not like World War II where it came knocking on our door and we had to act. After Sept. 11, one can argue that war knocked on our door and that is why we invaded Afghanistan, but the same cannot be said for Iraq. Schlesinger said the problem with the Iraq war was that the Bush administration had “not one doubt” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was attempting to make nuclear bombs and had a strong connection with Bin Laden. People didn’t fight Bush because it was only a year and a half after Sept. 11. However, Bush was wrong.
What I found interesting about Schlesinger’s book was that each chapter framed an idea, often about the Bush presidency, and then backed it up with things that former presidents had said or actions that they had made. For instance, when talking about Bush entering Iraq, he quoted Lincoln saying, “If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us,’ but he will say to you, ‘Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.’ I unfortunately agree with Schlesinger that the president often had too much power when it comes to war entering powers, and I stronger agree with Lincoln’s quote here. I was only in the eighth grade when we entered Iraq, so my foreign policy skills were very little if any. But I remember thinking that Bush knew what he was doing. I remembered being a scared 12 year old when we were attacked and I thought the president was trying to protect us. I still think that’s what Bush was doing, but at what cost? Here we are still in Iraq, and what good have we done? Obama promised he’d get us out, but has he? It’s more complicated than Obama promised. War is such a complicated and permanent thing, that unless it’s necessary, we should not enter it. There’s a difference between stepping in when a country needs our help or stepping in when we’ve been attacked, but stepping in and having a full war are two different things.
I also agree with Schlesinger when he said that an imperial presidency was most likely to happen when dealing with foreign affairs. It’s easy for an imperial presidency to happen when it involves war because Congress and the American people often question their own judgment or how much they know about the foreign situation at hand. Which is why the president is trusted in foreign affair matters. The American people assume the president has done as much research as possible and has thought through the consequences of war, making an imperial presidency possible. And Bush is not the only president to do this. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt when beyond their Constitutional powers, but both did so on the idea that the American people’s safety was at stake. Roosevelt once said, “when the war is won, the powers under which I act automatically revert to the people – to whom they belong.” I believe Bush had the same mindset. He knew he was going beyond his own described powers, but he was doing it for the safety of the people. And most people don’t argue with his views to enter Afghanistan. However, an imperial presidency is dangerous when a president can use one war and one attack to base his reasoning for entering another war.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The President, Congress and the Court
Justice Jackson said in his concurrence for Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. vs. Sawyer that, “presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.” Justice Jackson clearly explains his opinions about the relationship between Congress and the judicial branch. He states that the president is under executive law. He also stresses that no one, including the president, knows the “limits of the power he may seek to exert in this instance and the parties affected cannot learn the limit of their rights.
When outlining the president’s ability to use power, he breaks it into three categories: If the president acts with implied authorization or consent of Congress, the president is using his authority and legitimacy to the maximum of his abilities. The president can also act when Congress has been silent, giving him more independent powers. When Congress is silent, it gives the president more responsibility. And third, the president can act against the expressed wishes of Congress, and have the lowest amount of legitimacy. Here, he felt that Truman acted on the third rule.
What’s interesting about Jackson is that he thinks the president should only have to act on the expressed views of Congress. The Judicial branch should act more as a power to help the legislative. When the president brushes the legislative aside, it can use the judicial branch’s power as a means to sway their expressed views.
As for the court’s power, Jackson doesn’t emphasis that a lot. He said if the court reviews the president’s plans as a first review, then that leaves the president vulnerable to attack and “in the least favorable of possible constitutional postures.” He also says that important issues may go out of the public light and pass away over time. He also said it is the “duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up…” In this case, the court is reviewing the president’s decisions for the first time and he is most vulnerable for attack, Jackson said.
I’ve always been taught that the three branches of government are supposed to be a system of checks and balances on one another. But here, it seems that Justice Jackson is saying that the president has the most power, the legislative serves as a check on the executive and the judicial is there when the legislative needs it. This doesn’t not sound like the checks and balances that I’m used to. It concerns me that Jackson feels that the Court’s role is so much less than the other two branches. The purpose for having three branches is so they can all check up on each other. If that isn’t there, then that means the president or the legislative branch is gaining more power than what is listed in the constitution.
The constitution states that the president receives most of his power from the allowance of Congress. Jackson agrees with this, but also lays out that the president has the most power and he can choose to disregard Congress. However, that will decrease his legitimacy. He also says that sometimes the powers of the president and Congress collide and the president and Congress argue about who has certain powers.
Again, when Jackson says, “presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress,” I think he hits it spot on. There are certain powers in the constitution that belong to the president or congress or the court. But there are often times when it’s unclear who receives what powers, and the decision to go into war is one of those powers.
When outlining the president’s ability to use power, he breaks it into three categories: If the president acts with implied authorization or consent of Congress, the president is using his authority and legitimacy to the maximum of his abilities. The president can also act when Congress has been silent, giving him more independent powers. When Congress is silent, it gives the president more responsibility. And third, the president can act against the expressed wishes of Congress, and have the lowest amount of legitimacy. Here, he felt that Truman acted on the third rule.
What’s interesting about Jackson is that he thinks the president should only have to act on the expressed views of Congress. The Judicial branch should act more as a power to help the legislative. When the president brushes the legislative aside, it can use the judicial branch’s power as a means to sway their expressed views.
As for the court’s power, Jackson doesn’t emphasis that a lot. He said if the court reviews the president’s plans as a first review, then that leaves the president vulnerable to attack and “in the least favorable of possible constitutional postures.” He also says that important issues may go out of the public light and pass away over time. He also said it is the “duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up…” In this case, the court is reviewing the president’s decisions for the first time and he is most vulnerable for attack, Jackson said.
I’ve always been taught that the three branches of government are supposed to be a system of checks and balances on one another. But here, it seems that Justice Jackson is saying that the president has the most power, the legislative serves as a check on the executive and the judicial is there when the legislative needs it. This doesn’t not sound like the checks and balances that I’m used to. It concerns me that Jackson feels that the Court’s role is so much less than the other two branches. The purpose for having three branches is so they can all check up on each other. If that isn’t there, then that means the president or the legislative branch is gaining more power than what is listed in the constitution.
The constitution states that the president receives most of his power from the allowance of Congress. Jackson agrees with this, but also lays out that the president has the most power and he can choose to disregard Congress. However, that will decrease his legitimacy. He also says that sometimes the powers of the president and Congress collide and the president and Congress argue about who has certain powers.
Again, when Jackson says, “presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress,” I think he hits it spot on. There are certain powers in the constitution that belong to the president or congress or the court. But there are often times when it’s unclear who receives what powers, and the decision to go into war is one of those powers.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Clinton on Kosovo vs. Obama on Libya
Both Clinton speech on entering Kosovo and Barack Obama's on entering Libya have many similarities. For instance, they both repeatedly say that their reasons for entering Kosovo and Libya is because it's in America's best interest. Both speeches discuss that when there is a tyrant that is hurting civilians who are unable to defend themselves, the United States must act. But more importantly, the both emphasized that they did not enter this conflict alone. Obama made every effort to stress that the United States didn't actually put any military regimes on the ground in Libya and that our allies, Spain, Greece and Turkey. Obama emphasized that the international community asked the U.S. to get involved, and when we have the means and it's in our best interest, we should. In my opinion, one of Obama's strengths was that he stressed that the United States is playing a supporting role in the conflict. At the time of his speech, he said that the United States would be handing control of the no fly zone to NATO. He also stressed that because of NATO's strong involvement, the United States was able to limit the cost of the operation for our military and American tax payers. Obama also tried to make the country's involvement in Libya seem shortlived by saying that it only took 31 days to really get involved, when it took a year for the world to get involved in Bosnia. However, at the time of his speech, Obama admitted that Libya's president hadn't stepped down yet. I think that's important to not because as Obama tried to make this look like a quick operation that just needed a shot and a bandaide, in reality, it was more complicated than that and the conflict wasn't over at the time of his speech.
Clinton's speech was very similar to this. He also stressed NATO's involvement and how by acting when the United States did, it prevented a war. Clinton, like Obama, stressed that the people of Kosovo were helpless and that their government was going door-to-door trying to hurt them. He emphasized that the American people and our allies had a need to help. "Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative," Clinton said. He then stressed Kosovo's relationship to the rest of Europe geographically, and how acting now was essential to prevent a full out war. I found it interesting that Clinton compared Kosovo to Bosnia and how the United States and its allies didn't act fast enough in Bosnia. Clinton stressed that we learned lessons in Bosnia, and that by acting now in Kosovo, we will be saving more lives. Obama also made a comparison, but it was with Libya and Iraq. As Obama continued to stress that it only took the United States and its allies 31 days and not U.S. military was on the ground, he said that isn't the cause about Iraq. He said we learned a lesson in Iraq, which is once you put military on the ground and get really involved, it can take you up to eight years before you are able to switch the power in the country.
With Obama's speech, I think there was a doctrine. I think he made his doctrine clear when he said that it's not the United States role to police the world. He said that America can't be involved in everything, but that doesn't mean we should NEVER be involved with conflicts. He said that when innocent civilians are being harmed and it could cause a war if our allies don't get involved, then the United States must act. But Obama also stressed limited action. He said that we should not cause unnecessary costs to the American people and by not putting troops on the ground in Libya, we saved lives. I think Clinton also included a doctrine. He also emphasized that the conflict must be strong enough in which innocent civilians are being hurt, and if action is not taken soon, then a full war could begin. Clinton's doctrine also included that the United States and our allies must do everything in our power to first solve the problem peacefully before acting with our military.
However, if the United States is going to have high involvement in Bosnia and Libya, does the United States have a responsbility to help all countries that are being repressed by their leaders? Obama said no. Obama said that it is not the United States job to police the world. However, that shouldn't be a reason to NEVER get involved, he said. Obama's emphasis was once again two things. 1) That the attacks were becoming a mass massacre and that he wasn't going to wait until the horrific images came to him that showed the death of innocent people. 2) He also argued that America was in a unique position to help, but not become overwhelmingly involved. The country to work with our allies to help cause mass hurt to innocent people without putting troops on the ground, which was unlike Iraq. He said that when America can do that, then they NEED to act. I agree with Obama that the United States cannot police the world. However, I have a hard time understanding how Clinton and Obama can justify entering Libya and Kosovo, but not other conflicts. In Clinton's case, I give him credit. He didn't act on Rwanda and regretted it. So when he saw that he could help Bosnia and Kosovo, he had no hesitations when deciding to help. Obama, on the otherhand, stressed so much that Libya seemed like a quick and easy fix for the United States. They came in, established a no fly zone, never put a troop on the ground and then quickly left. At the end of Obama's speech, I was left thinking 'so if we could go into Yemen or other countries and help them quickly with our allies support and never put a troop on the ground, then we'd get involved?' I agree that the United States should get involved when we can feasibly do so with our allies and prevent a crisis from becoming an all out war. I believe it is our need to get involved. But if Obama and Clinton are going to argue this, then they need to be ready to get involved with their allies in more countries.
I agree that America cannot police the world and get involved in every conflict. However, with the recent uprisings in Egypt and Saudi role in Bahrain, Barack Obama said very little. He said that they are our allies, but he didn't strongly address the fact that innocent people are being hurt. I think for Obama, and Clinton as well, there is a fine line when a country needs to try to work out their problems on their own before the United States should get involved, because like Obama said, we can't be involved in everything. However, presidents need to follow their standard of when they get involved. Look at World War II. Innocent people were being suppressed and hurt and America didn't get involved until we were directly attacked. Look at Rwanda. I understand we can't be involved in everything, but we need to set a guideline that says here are examples in the past when we got involved and we should have and when we got involved and maybe we shouldn't have. Then today's current world conflicts should be compared to those when making a decision to enter or not. America's past proves that the careful decision is not always being made or that we've failed to act when we should have.
Clinton's speech was very similar to this. He also stressed NATO's involvement and how by acting when the United States did, it prevented a war. Clinton, like Obama, stressed that the people of Kosovo were helpless and that their government was going door-to-door trying to hurt them. He emphasized that the American people and our allies had a need to help. "Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative," Clinton said. He then stressed Kosovo's relationship to the rest of Europe geographically, and how acting now was essential to prevent a full out war. I found it interesting that Clinton compared Kosovo to Bosnia and how the United States and its allies didn't act fast enough in Bosnia. Clinton stressed that we learned lessons in Bosnia, and that by acting now in Kosovo, we will be saving more lives. Obama also made a comparison, but it was with Libya and Iraq. As Obama continued to stress that it only took the United States and its allies 31 days and not U.S. military was on the ground, he said that isn't the cause about Iraq. He said we learned a lesson in Iraq, which is once you put military on the ground and get really involved, it can take you up to eight years before you are able to switch the power in the country.
With Obama's speech, I think there was a doctrine. I think he made his doctrine clear when he said that it's not the United States role to police the world. He said that America can't be involved in everything, but that doesn't mean we should NEVER be involved with conflicts. He said that when innocent civilians are being harmed and it could cause a war if our allies don't get involved, then the United States must act. But Obama also stressed limited action. He said that we should not cause unnecessary costs to the American people and by not putting troops on the ground in Libya, we saved lives. I think Clinton also included a doctrine. He also emphasized that the conflict must be strong enough in which innocent civilians are being hurt, and if action is not taken soon, then a full war could begin. Clinton's doctrine also included that the United States and our allies must do everything in our power to first solve the problem peacefully before acting with our military.
However, if the United States is going to have high involvement in Bosnia and Libya, does the United States have a responsbility to help all countries that are being repressed by their leaders? Obama said no. Obama said that it is not the United States job to police the world. However, that shouldn't be a reason to NEVER get involved, he said. Obama's emphasis was once again two things. 1) That the attacks were becoming a mass massacre and that he wasn't going to wait until the horrific images came to him that showed the death of innocent people. 2) He also argued that America was in a unique position to help, but not become overwhelmingly involved. The country to work with our allies to help cause mass hurt to innocent people without putting troops on the ground, which was unlike Iraq. He said that when America can do that, then they NEED to act. I agree with Obama that the United States cannot police the world. However, I have a hard time understanding how Clinton and Obama can justify entering Libya and Kosovo, but not other conflicts. In Clinton's case, I give him credit. He didn't act on Rwanda and regretted it. So when he saw that he could help Bosnia and Kosovo, he had no hesitations when deciding to help. Obama, on the otherhand, stressed so much that Libya seemed like a quick and easy fix for the United States. They came in, established a no fly zone, never put a troop on the ground and then quickly left. At the end of Obama's speech, I was left thinking 'so if we could go into Yemen or other countries and help them quickly with our allies support and never put a troop on the ground, then we'd get involved?' I agree that the United States should get involved when we can feasibly do so with our allies and prevent a crisis from becoming an all out war. I believe it is our need to get involved. But if Obama and Clinton are going to argue this, then they need to be ready to get involved with their allies in more countries.
I agree that America cannot police the world and get involved in every conflict. However, with the recent uprisings in Egypt and Saudi role in Bahrain, Barack Obama said very little. He said that they are our allies, but he didn't strongly address the fact that innocent people are being hurt. I think for Obama, and Clinton as well, there is a fine line when a country needs to try to work out their problems on their own before the United States should get involved, because like Obama said, we can't be involved in everything. However, presidents need to follow their standard of when they get involved. Look at World War II. Innocent people were being suppressed and hurt and America didn't get involved until we were directly attacked. Look at Rwanda. I understand we can't be involved in everything, but we need to set a guideline that says here are examples in the past when we got involved and we should have and when we got involved and maybe we shouldn't have. Then today's current world conflicts should be compared to those when making a decision to enter or not. America's past proves that the careful decision is not always being made or that we've failed to act when we should have.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
An objective Supreme Court?
A LITTLE BACKGROUND
It’s the president’s role to nominate a lawyer when there is a vacant judicial position. The Senate Judiciary Committee is then sent the nomination, where they gather background information about the nominee from the FBI. They then thoroughly review the nominee’s record. The committee then has a hearing in which senators question the nominee and witnesses speak in favor and against the person in question. Once the Judiciary Committee votes, it makes a recommendation to the Senate that the nominee should either be confirmed, rejected or that the nominee will receive no recommendation because the committee decides not to send a nominee to the Senate. The Senate must have a 3/5 vote (60 senators) to make a decision. Senators can filibuster the vote if they choose to delay the vote on the nominee. When the debate is complete, all that is needed is a majority vote of the senators present.
CALIBER OF JUSTICES
I think we are getting the caliber of justices we ought to expect. I agree with Nixon’s decision to only allow previous lawyers to be nominated to the court. Not only does this allow us to have justices who know the Constitution well and have a background in the judicial system, but they are also less likely to be bias toward their party. When presidents used to nominate politicians or people in their party that they owed a favor to, the American people weren’t getting the caliber of justices that they deserved.
If I could offer a suggestion, it would be that there should be more justices to choose from. For instance, when choosing Elena Kagan, a dean of the Harvard School of Law, it would have been nice to have another nominee in which we could see his or her previous cases and judge better about how he or she would rule in future cases. I’m not saying that Kagan isn’t qualified or that we shouldn’t take the president’s nominations seriously, but I would feel better about the caliber of our justices if the Senate Judiciary Committee had choices instead of simply choosing whether or not to recommend a nominee.
Although I think we as citizens need to expect a certain political objectivity from our Supreme Court justices, I don’t think we should expect them to be apolitical. Every member of the Senate and House of Representatives and even the president claims a party. Why should we ask our Supreme Court justices to do differently? We ask our media to be objective and to not have political parties, but complain that reporters still lean politically. I’d rather have justices who are open about their political parties than ones who say they are objective but then rule on cases in a nonobjective way.
However, I think lines can be crossed. For instance, Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has launched a tea-party group that could test the waters of impartiality in the court.
“I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you.” – Virginia Thomas, as quoted in a recent Los Angeles Times article.
But should people so closely related to the court be allowed to have such involvement? Since Virginia isn’t a justice herself, should she be allowed to be involved? My answer is no. Would we throw a fit if Michelle Obama launched a tea-party group? Yes. And one can argue that Virginia as much weight, if not more than Michelle because Virginia’s husband is making decisions on court cases that rely on him being as objective as possible even if he’s open about his political party.
When choosing a Supreme Court nominee, I think it is fine that the president chooses someone from his own party. Like I said before, it’s rare to find a nominee that is a true moderate. If the president is allowed to use his pull with his political party to pass legislature, then I think he should be allowed to do so when choosing a Supreme Court nominee. However, I think the president needs to set standards that say that justices and their close family can’t have strong political ties. They may base their decisions on influence from their political party, but they cannot become active in politics beyond their roles as justices.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Representing the People
When it comes to representing the American people, the president should be a politico, one who bases their decisions on whether the American people are knowledgeable on an issue or are not. I think a president should be a delegate whenever he or she can, representing the opinions of those she represents, but that’s not always possible. The president can’t please everyone, and sometimes it’s important that the president make decisions for her constituents. For instance, the president should make decisions about the federal reserve for her constituents. Since not that many people care about it, it’s likely that not that many citizens are well versed in that topic, so the president should make decisions for her constituents in that area, acting as a trustee. However, when it comes to education, where people are highly affected by decisions made, the president needs to accurately reflect the views of the people, being more of a delegate.
The positive points to being a politico is that the people will hopefully feel that the president is accurately representing them on issues that they care about. The down side is that the president might be viewed as a weak president because he doesn’t simply make decisions for his constituents, but instead tries to please everyone. By being a politico or a delegate, the president could get caught up in trying to please everyone, which is impossible. In an attempt to please everyone, the president might waver on decisions, coining him a weak president.
Ideally, the president should try to represent all citizens. It’s not fair for him just to represent the electorate or members of his political party. He is the president of the United States, therefore it’s his job to represent the whole country.
However, it’s not as simple as that. Although it’s ideal to have the president represent all citizens, it’s impossible. He can try, but a man who lives in Washington cannot possibly represent all citizens. If you’ve never been poor, it’s very hard to represent the poor. If you’ve never been in the military, it’s very hard to represent a veteran. I think it’s the job of Congress to represent their constituents. Members of Congress are expected to talk to their constituents and vote in favor of their needs. They can do this because they specialize in a particular part of the country. One man cannot be expected to represent the needs of all the people of the United States.
Although this isn’t ideal, I think the president should represent his or her political party. When the president runs for office, he is basing his stances on issues based on his political party. When Obama passed the health care bill, he didn’t do it for the Republicans. He also didn’t do it to represent the people because not everyone wanted the bill to pass. He did it to represent his political party and the people who support his issues. It’s impossible for the president to make everyone happy, and if he tries, he’ll just be wasting time.
However, there are times when I think a presidents role of representation can take various forms. For instance, I think a trustee is necessary in times of war or with foreign affairs. When we're in war, the president needs to do what he thinks is best for the American people or for other foreign bodies. As commander in chief, it's his job to know foreign policies better than anyone in the country and to make decisions. The American people are not very well versed in foreign policies, meaning often times our point of views aren't necessarily relevant.
When dealing with health care, I think it's essential that a president acts as politico. He needs to accurately represent the views of the people because it's a highly cared about issue, but at the same time, he needs to be a trustee that says I ran on the health care bill, you know what you were getting when you elected me and I know what's good for you.
Also, constituents shouldn't expect their president to be descriptively representative, meaning that because he or she belongs to your demographic group, that means they are better representatives of their political needs. Constituents shouldn’t expect this because look at Obama. Just because he’s black doesn’t mean he represents the needs of all black people. He represents the needs of wealthy, educated black people, but he doesn’t represent the needs of poor black people or black people who are Republicans. The same goes with presidents who are from your state. Just because the president is from your state doesn’t mean that they understand what is important to you. Yes, they will have a better idea than other presidents, but that doesn’t mean they came from the same social class as you or feel strongly about the same issues as you.
Although media is more available today than it was 20 years ago, people are still just as unknowledgeable about current events as they were 20 years ago, according to a study published in 2007. In 2007, only 69 percent of the people surveyed could name the current vice president, while only 66 percent knew the name of their state governor and only 68 percent knew that America has a trade deficit. More people knew who Beyonce Knowles was than Nancy Pelosi. Only 55 percent of the population knew that about 3,000 troops had died in Iraq and only 34 percent of the population knew that the new minimum wage would be $7.25 an hour. With statistics like these, it's essential that a president is a politico, one who is representative as a trustee or a delegate depending on the knowledge of the issue by the American people. If the American people aren't knowledgeable about a issue, then the president needs to act as a trustee who makes decisions for the people because they can't do it for themselves. However, when the American people are knowledgeable about issues then the president needs to listen to the American people before making decisions.
The positive points to being a politico is that the people will hopefully feel that the president is accurately representing them on issues that they care about. The down side is that the president might be viewed as a weak president because he doesn’t simply make decisions for his constituents, but instead tries to please everyone. By being a politico or a delegate, the president could get caught up in trying to please everyone, which is impossible. In an attempt to please everyone, the president might waver on decisions, coining him a weak president.
Ideally, the president should try to represent all citizens. It’s not fair for him just to represent the electorate or members of his political party. He is the president of the United States, therefore it’s his job to represent the whole country.
However, it’s not as simple as that. Although it’s ideal to have the president represent all citizens, it’s impossible. He can try, but a man who lives in Washington cannot possibly represent all citizens. If you’ve never been poor, it’s very hard to represent the poor. If you’ve never been in the military, it’s very hard to represent a veteran. I think it’s the job of Congress to represent their constituents. Members of Congress are expected to talk to their constituents and vote in favor of their needs. They can do this because they specialize in a particular part of the country. One man cannot be expected to represent the needs of all the people of the United States.
Although this isn’t ideal, I think the president should represent his or her political party. When the president runs for office, he is basing his stances on issues based on his political party. When Obama passed the health care bill, he didn’t do it for the Republicans. He also didn’t do it to represent the people because not everyone wanted the bill to pass. He did it to represent his political party and the people who support his issues. It’s impossible for the president to make everyone happy, and if he tries, he’ll just be wasting time.
However, there are times when I think a presidents role of representation can take various forms. For instance, I think a trustee is necessary in times of war or with foreign affairs. When we're in war, the president needs to do what he thinks is best for the American people or for other foreign bodies. As commander in chief, it's his job to know foreign policies better than anyone in the country and to make decisions. The American people are not very well versed in foreign policies, meaning often times our point of views aren't necessarily relevant.
When dealing with health care, I think it's essential that a president acts as politico. He needs to accurately represent the views of the people because it's a highly cared about issue, but at the same time, he needs to be a trustee that says I ran on the health care bill, you know what you were getting when you elected me and I know what's good for you.
Also, constituents shouldn't expect their president to be descriptively representative, meaning that because he or she belongs to your demographic group, that means they are better representatives of their political needs. Constituents shouldn’t expect this because look at Obama. Just because he’s black doesn’t mean he represents the needs of all black people. He represents the needs of wealthy, educated black people, but he doesn’t represent the needs of poor black people or black people who are Republicans. The same goes with presidents who are from your state. Just because the president is from your state doesn’t mean that they understand what is important to you. Yes, they will have a better idea than other presidents, but that doesn’t mean they came from the same social class as you or feel strongly about the same issues as you.
Although media is more available today than it was 20 years ago, people are still just as unknowledgeable about current events as they were 20 years ago, according to a study published in 2007. In 2007, only 69 percent of the people surveyed could name the current vice president, while only 66 percent knew the name of their state governor and only 68 percent knew that America has a trade deficit. More people knew who Beyonce Knowles was than Nancy Pelosi. Only 55 percent of the population knew that about 3,000 troops had died in Iraq and only 34 percent of the population knew that the new minimum wage would be $7.25 an hour. With statistics like these, it's essential that a president is a politico, one who is representative as a trustee or a delegate depending on the knowledge of the issue by the American people. If the American people aren't knowledgeable about a issue, then the president needs to act as a trustee who makes decisions for the people because they can't do it for themselves. However, when the American people are knowledgeable about issues then the president needs to listen to the American people before making decisions.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Roosevelt vs. Taft
How much power should the president have? It’s a question that is debated even by the people that hold the office.
Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft have very different opinions about how to run an executive branch. Teddy Roosevelt believed in the “stewardship theory,” meaning that the president could do anything that was not forbidden in the Constitution. Roosevelt believed that “there inheres in the Presidency more power than in any office in any great republic or constitutional monarchy in modern times.” He believed that a president should use every ounce of power available to him. Roosevelt is often credited with bringing aggression and leadership to the presidency. At the same time, when he sent troops to Cuba in 1906, many people criticized him for not consulting Congress.
Taft, on the other hand, believed in strictly following the Constitution.
“The true view of the executive functions is, as I conceive it, that the president can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express grant as proper and necessary to its exercise. Such specific grant must be either in the federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which he can exercise because it seems to him to be in the public interest. . . . The grants of executive power are necessarily in general terms in order not to embarrass the executive within the field of action plainly marked for him, but his jurisdiction must be justified and vindicated by affirmative constitutional or statutory provision, or it does not exist.” – William Howard Taft
Taft’s view of the presidency can be viewed as constitutionally correct. The Constitution states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Although the Constitution is vague, it’s clear that the president is supposed to receive the advice and consent of the Senate. Although Taft did not see himself as a weak president, people could argue that a president who doesn’t show authority and enforce in a strong executive isn’t effective. By following Taft’s view, the president is less likely to accomplish as much during his or her term as a president who follows Roosevelt’s beliefs.
I think a hybrid of both Roosevelt and Taft is best. Although I like Roosevelt’s reasoning, I must agree with Taft that the president should not have too much power. I’ve always seen Congress as a very powerful branch of government, and if the executive is given too much power, then it takes away power from Congress. In many ways, representatives in Congress know the American people better than the president does because they interact with their constituents more often. When it comes to passing a bill such as the recent health care law, I think it’s important that we follow Taft’s model. The president shouldn’t be able to pass a piece of legislature of that size without Congress’ approval.
However, I do believe Roosevelt’s theory is good in times of war. For instance, after an event or natural disaster such as September 11, the president needs to be able to make quick decisions without the approval of Congress or other powers. Giving this much power to the president during times of war or natural disaster could be good and bad. If the president messes up without consulting others, it could be detrimental to one’s presidency. But if the president makes a quick decision that is effective in times of tumult, it could benefit the country. It’s the American people’s job to elect a president that can lead during dire circumstances. Our Congress is known for taking a long time to make decisions and pass legislature, therefore when the country is in a state of emergency it’s important that the president can make a quick decision.
Atthe end of the day, the Constitution is vague enough that the president in power can decide what kind of executive he or she wants to conduct. Although I believe in a hybrid of both Taft and Roosevelt, it ultimately depends on the personality and characteristics of the person in office.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Obama's State of the Union
President Obama is a professional motivator. He rallied a country to say “Yes We Can” in Hyde Park, and he can still address the Union with speeches that can make even a nonbeliever hang a HOPE sign in their window. He even mustered a few applauses from John Boehner on Tuesday.
However, the reality of Obama’s promises are unsettling. I’m sure Obama meant what he said, and I’m sure he has every intention of following through with his agenda, but Obama knows the restrictions on a president the best.
Innovation: “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.”
Obama said he’ll be sending a budget to Congress that will help research and development in biomedical research, information technology and clean energy technology.
Reality? Obama began motivating his audience during the first five minutes. But this is just a proposal. Congress has to approve this. Obama has no direct say whether this will happen or not.
Education: “If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child – become a teacher. Your country needs you.”
Obama promised to get rid of No Child Left Behind and start enforcing Race to the Top, a proposed reform of our public schools. Obama claims it was established by governors throughout the country and it has led 40 states to raise their teaching and learning standards (Indiana must not be one of them).
Reality? Not much. Although education has always been high on Obama’s list, it’s not something he has a lot of control over. Yes, he can throw out No Child Left Behind and implement a new system, but how Race to the Top works in public schools will be up to administrators. He’ll also need Congress to approve his education budget.
Reducing the deficit: Obama proposed to freeze annual domestic spending during the next five years, which will reduce the deficit by $400 billion during the next decade.
Reality? Congress will once again have to approve these spending freezes.
The president spoke on other issues as well, such as immigration. But he simply stated his stance and what he hopes the country will do, but he even recognized himself that he can’t change our immigration laws alone.
The only things Obama promised that’s in his realm of power is to veto legislation that came to his desk with “earmarks.” However, this is not news to Obama. He was careful to say “propose to Congress” throughout his speech and to say that the health care reform will not be repealed, but he is willing to work on many kinks that have already appeared. He followed Kernell’s theory that public opinion matters with his motivational “We do big things.” He did this whenever he talked about small businesses and large railway system: He was trying to win over the American people by “going public.” He did this when he thanked teachers and when he spoke of lowering cooperate taxes, and it’s definitely a good way to win votes. He also followed Neustdat’s theory that the president must persuade the people around him in order to get legislature proposed. He tried to make his proposals as appealing as possible and attempted to win Congress over. Lucky for Obama, he’s a very motivational speaker and convincing guy.
However, the reality of Obama’s promises are unsettling. I’m sure Obama meant what he said, and I’m sure he has every intention of following through with his agenda, but Obama knows the restrictions on a president the best.
Innovation: “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.”
Obama said he’ll be sending a budget to Congress that will help research and development in biomedical research, information technology and clean energy technology.
Reality? Obama began motivating his audience during the first five minutes. But this is just a proposal. Congress has to approve this. Obama has no direct say whether this will happen or not.
Education: “If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child – become a teacher. Your country needs you.”
Obama promised to get rid of No Child Left Behind and start enforcing Race to the Top, a proposed reform of our public schools. Obama claims it was established by governors throughout the country and it has led 40 states to raise their teaching and learning standards (Indiana must not be one of them).
Reality? Not much. Although education has always been high on Obama’s list, it’s not something he has a lot of control over. Yes, he can throw out No Child Left Behind and implement a new system, but how Race to the Top works in public schools will be up to administrators. He’ll also need Congress to approve his education budget.
Reducing the deficit: Obama proposed to freeze annual domestic spending during the next five years, which will reduce the deficit by $400 billion during the next decade.
Reality? Congress will once again have to approve these spending freezes.
The president spoke on other issues as well, such as immigration. But he simply stated his stance and what he hopes the country will do, but he even recognized himself that he can’t change our immigration laws alone.
The only things Obama promised that’s in his realm of power is to veto legislation that came to his desk with “earmarks.” However, this is not news to Obama. He was careful to say “propose to Congress” throughout his speech and to say that the health care reform will not be repealed, but he is willing to work on many kinks that have already appeared. He followed Kernell’s theory that public opinion matters with his motivational “We do big things.” He did this whenever he talked about small businesses and large railway system: He was trying to win over the American people by “going public.” He did this when he thanked teachers and when he spoke of lowering cooperate taxes, and it’s definitely a good way to win votes. He also followed Neustdat’s theory that the president must persuade the people around him in order to get legislature proposed. He tried to make his proposals as appealing as possible and attempted to win Congress over. Lucky for Obama, he’s a very motivational speaker and convincing guy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)