I recently read an article on my cell phone, the headline of which repeated the adjectives favored by the left when describing the Bush presidency. Leaving aside fact that the headline completely belies the content of the article to support a partisan bias, one particular sentence caught my attention:
"[Bush] is seen as pushing for an agenda to the right of the nation and doing so through executive power that ignored the popular will..."
So I ask the Contributing Factors, by what standard should the president govern? Is the executive office of our government bound to do only the will of the populace, or, once elected, is he free to act by the guide of his judgment and the will of his conscience?
It is striking to me that a large part of our current President's unpopularity has as much to do with the wedge of which Scott spoke so eloquently as his actions. But that said, was he supposed to have compromised his beliefs to do the will of the people (and thus gain popularity), or is that duty more accurately assigned to the Congress?
Moreover, what does this mean for our next President? Does Barack Obama have a mandate to act only on the will of the people, or is he free to act on his own agenda, with the aid and consent of a friendly Congress?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Cephas, your question lies at the heart of what it means to have a republican democracy.
Theoretically, one could argue that the fact that the American people vote for any combination of president and Congress represents an expression that the people support the views of those candidates and are happy to allow them to act on their behalf.
I think reality is more complicated than that. The real system is a constant feedback loop where the government acts and reacts based on the response of the people not just on election day but every day.
I think the challenge that Obama faces--and Bush faced--is finding a way to execute his office while wandering through the minefield of executive responsibility, international pressure, and citizen demand. He has to determine for himself how best to balance those requirements for the good of the office and the republic.
What makes the difference in how the public perceives that balancing act is the way it is sold. If Obama sells is ideas well, he will get a pass even when he is wrong like Bill Clinton, but if he sells them poorly, he gets eaten alive like Bush 43.
Yeah, one of the complexities is that the President (and by that I mean the office, not specifically Bush) has too often acted as much as head of the party as head of the country. I honestly believe, in my candyland brain, that once a President is elected, he should cease to be a member of a political party and be the President.
His duties are pretty clear. They are spelled out in the Constitution, and his oath makes clear that his primary responsibility is TO the Constitution.
Beyond that, I think it needs to be a judicious mix, which is why I think trust is so crucial to the position. The President needs to be aware of public sentiment, but actually Congress is the representative voice of the People. It is the President's job to check that voice only in extreme situations to defend the Constitution (practically speaking, to ensure the general welfare).
The President is the Executive. It is his job to put into effect the laws of the land and see that they are carried out. It is not really his job to put forth a personal agenda, though sanity demands that we recognize that a person's beliefs will form and inform his judgment.
As an aside, this is why I'm even more po'd at Congress than I am at President Bush about Iraq (though I don't often say it). Congress was so weak when it said effectively, "Um yeah, a, do whatever you think is best. We sure don't want to be held accountable." It was Congress's job to say, "Yes, go to war with Iraq. As Commander in Chief, we empower you to use the resources we've placed at your disposal to accomplish X goal. Go to it." Instead, they gave a President and an administration with a pre-conceived agenda a blank check to go do whatever they felt like. But I digress. :)
"Beyond that, I think it needs to be a judicious mix, which is why I think trust is so crucial to the position. The President needs to be aware of public sentiment, but actually Congress is the representative voice of the People. It is the President's job to check that voice only in extreme situations to defend the Constitution (practically speaking, to ensure the general welfare)."
I agree with that wholly. So where does that leave the last string of presidents who apparently thought it was also in their job description to originate legislation? It seems that more than ever, the campaign promises of presidential candidates fall far outside of their actual responsibilities.
To be fair, the president has the unfortunate position of being blamed (or praised) for most of the work of Congress anyway, so I guess I can see one reason why they'd try to influence congressional proceedings.
For the record: I have a certain view of executive powers and prerogatives that will not change just because the man behind the Resolute desk has a D after his name instead of an R.
The executive has a constitutionally-defined role. The vice president is not an extra-constitutional office for the oversight of clandestine nonsense, free of oversight or censure.
The man bears a mandate into that office, to be sure. The election was about any number of things, but if you polled the electorate, I am certain that they would tell you that the mandate includes ratcheting down the gunslinger mentality that has been exuded by the Oval office during Bush 43.
The standard by which he governs will be like any other. He will govern from his principles and as he has outlined during his campaign. I think he will try to govern from the middle for the most part. Without being +60 in the Senate (a thing I'm currently happy about, btw) a certain amount of bipartisanship is essential. This is going to be an interesting administration to watch at work. His campaign was so disciplined, his personality is so reserved and his bearing so calm, the difference between the sometimes freewheeling natures of the previous adminstrations dating back to Reagan will be a study in contrasts, I'm sure.
I'm also sure he will attempt to be the second coming of FDR and with a mostly friendly congress and if he can keep his poll numbers up, he might yet pull it off. We shall see.
Post a Comment