In my view, the president should ideally act as a politico, representing the entire citizenry of the United States. Politicos are superior to either delegates or trustees, since it allows the president to avoid the pitfalls that face the other two models.
Delegates, who act in a way that represents the beliefs and desires of her constituents, face several weaknesses. There are many issues about which the general public is ill-informed or unaware. This is to be expected, as not everyone in the country has time to stay up to date on the hundreds of different issues regarding which the government must make decisions. On the other hand, a trustee feels no obligation to act in accord with the wishes of their constituents, which can be potentially harmful. Upon being elected, they make decisions based on what they alone think is best for their constituents, which gives the representative too much discretion, too much opportunity for action that opposes the interests of their constituents.
So, a politico representative strikes the best balance between the two. Regarding issues about which the public is well informed and is able to responsibly decide for itself, the politico acts like a delegate, acting in accord with the will of the people. Conversely, regarding issues about which the public is ill-informed and not able to responsibly decide for itself, the politico acts as a trustee, doing what he (or advising experts) think is in the public’s best interest.
The president, though not elected by the entire country or even the entire electorate, should represent every citizen of the United States to the best of his ability. While he has to be careful not to alienate his base, after being elected to the presidency, his obligation is to do what is in the best interest of every citizen of the United States. This isn’t a perfect world, so this won’t happen all the time, but a president who acts in the interests of his base when it adversely affects the rest of the country poses the same danger as majority factions in Congress, as discussed by Madison in Federalist #10.
People shouldn’t really expect their president to be descriptively representative, wherein the representative comes from the same social demographic. For one thing, the president cannot descriptively represent everyone, so it would be absurd for everyone to expect descriptive representation. Further, having a president who descriptively represented some social groups, such as those without college degrees or the homeless, just wouldn’t be a good idea. We want our president to have a college degree. That said, the president does often represent a large portion of the electorate descriptively. Given the trends in elected presidents, the educated upper-middle to upper class is typically represented descriptively. To expect anything different would be fairly unrealistic, and any other form of descriptive representation probably wouldn’t be of much benefit. Other perceived benefits of descriptive representation would likely be purely symbolic, not actually improving the substantive representation.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Presidential Power
Presidents Taft and Roosevelt espoused very different theories of presidential power. Roosevelt took a very loose constructionist view of the role of the executive. He believed that the president was given the power to do anything that wasn't expressly forbidden, and even took it a step further. In certain times of crisis, Roosevelt argued, the president would be forced, in acting in the best interest of the country he swore to defend, to take actions that were expressly against the constitution. His view of the occasional necessity of extra-constitutional presidential activity is evidenced by his unprecedented actions to combat the Depression.
Taft's view was entirely the opposite. He believed that the president was allowed only the powers he was specifically granted by the constitution, a strict constructionist view. In metaphor, he thought that the presidency should be a man tightly bound by the constitution, only able to move in the small, specific ways the bindings allowed. Even in times of crisis, if the constitution didn't specifically say the executive could do it, he would be unable to take action.
Roosevelt viewed Taft's theory as preventing the executive from truly doing his best to protect and defend the constitution, especially in situations when its defense would require briefly ignoring it. Taft, in turn, thought that Roosevelt's theory would allow the president to take dangerous amounts of power, possibly enough to permanently disrupt the stability of our democracy.
My opinion, after putting myself in the president's shoes, is very close to Roosevelt's. If the nation I was charged to defend was in trouble, and I could help in an extra-constitutional way, I would. Someone has to take action, and if the circumstances were such that I was the best person to do so, failing to do so would be a great failure of duty.
The risk for abuse exists, of course, but that risk exists whether or not you ascribe to the belief in potential benevolent uses. My espoused theory of presidential power fares best in situations where unusual circumstances would be best served by temporary, tailored increases in presidential power initiated by the executive. If Congress became compromised somehow and was unable to exercise the powers enumerated to them in the constitution, the president is able to step in and exercise the power, thus saving the nation from a dangerous period of neglect.
This theory of presidential power would fare most poorly if a president asserted and exercised increased power inappropriately, in ways that were not in the nation's best interest. The consequences for such an abuse could be disastrous, as it could severely shake people's faith in the stability of the government, which would have very negative effects on the economy and effectiveness of the government.
The palatability of this theory is very much dependent on the personal characteristics of the person in office. If it's someone the nation trusts to have the best interests of the country at heart and to act faithfully on its behalf, I think many would be at ease with this idea. If, however, the nations didn't have faith in the integrity and dedication of the executive, this idea would likely be frightening and unpopular.
The problem, of course, is that you can't practically have rules that change based on how the president is viewed by the nation. Short of an amendment to the constitution modifying the description of the powers of the executive, how much power a president is allowed to get will essentially be as much as he is able. His power relies upon his personal attributes and the political setting, and can be increased at his discretion if he has enough of these qualities. The limit on presidential power is much more practical than constitutional.
As we can see, the biggest factor in determining presidential power is in fact the president's own view of the presidency, combined with his political and personal savvy. I believe that popularly elected president who consciously overstepped his power on behalf of the nation would be more likely to have a positive than a negative impact. I also believe that there's no practical way to prevent a power hungry president from doing this very same thing, whether we subscribe to Taft's theory or Roosevelt's.
Taft's view was entirely the opposite. He believed that the president was allowed only the powers he was specifically granted by the constitution, a strict constructionist view. In metaphor, he thought that the presidency should be a man tightly bound by the constitution, only able to move in the small, specific ways the bindings allowed. Even in times of crisis, if the constitution didn't specifically say the executive could do it, he would be unable to take action.
Roosevelt viewed Taft's theory as preventing the executive from truly doing his best to protect and defend the constitution, especially in situations when its defense would require briefly ignoring it. Taft, in turn, thought that Roosevelt's theory would allow the president to take dangerous amounts of power, possibly enough to permanently disrupt the stability of our democracy.
My opinion, after putting myself in the president's shoes, is very close to Roosevelt's. If the nation I was charged to defend was in trouble, and I could help in an extra-constitutional way, I would. Someone has to take action, and if the circumstances were such that I was the best person to do so, failing to do so would be a great failure of duty.
The risk for abuse exists, of course, but that risk exists whether or not you ascribe to the belief in potential benevolent uses. My espoused theory of presidential power fares best in situations where unusual circumstances would be best served by temporary, tailored increases in presidential power initiated by the executive. If Congress became compromised somehow and was unable to exercise the powers enumerated to them in the constitution, the president is able to step in and exercise the power, thus saving the nation from a dangerous period of neglect.
This theory of presidential power would fare most poorly if a president asserted and exercised increased power inappropriately, in ways that were not in the nation's best interest. The consequences for such an abuse could be disastrous, as it could severely shake people's faith in the stability of the government, which would have very negative effects on the economy and effectiveness of the government.
The palatability of this theory is very much dependent on the personal characteristics of the person in office. If it's someone the nation trusts to have the best interests of the country at heart and to act faithfully on its behalf, I think many would be at ease with this idea. If, however, the nations didn't have faith in the integrity and dedication of the executive, this idea would likely be frightening and unpopular.
The problem, of course, is that you can't practically have rules that change based on how the president is viewed by the nation. Short of an amendment to the constitution modifying the description of the powers of the executive, how much power a president is allowed to get will essentially be as much as he is able. His power relies upon his personal attributes and the political setting, and can be increased at his discretion if he has enough of these qualities. The limit on presidential power is much more practical than constitutional.
As we can see, the biggest factor in determining presidential power is in fact the president's own view of the presidency, combined with his political and personal savvy. I believe that popularly elected president who consciously overstepped his power on behalf of the nation would be more likely to have a positive than a negative impact. I also believe that there's no practical way to prevent a power hungry president from doing this very same thing, whether we subscribe to Taft's theory or Roosevelt's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)