Can democracy survive George W. Bush?

Unitary executive

Essentially, the question of the unitary executive regards the scope of the president's power to execute laws and remove officials. The debate is as old as the Constitution itself, with proponents saying a strong presidential authority was written into the text and adversaries denying that claim.

In its modern form it was rekindled by the Reagan administration's consistent questioning of the constitutionality of independent agencies and counsels appointed under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Since Reagan, the debate has continued through the presidencies of Bush sr., and Clinton; and with George W.Bush it has flared up intensely.

According to Charlie in the Boston Globe of April 30, 2006, "President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research: many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Heavily debated instances of the Bush administration's claim to power relate to the ongoing “war on terror”, and include official policies regarding “enemy combatants”, Guantànamo prison, the flaunting of international law, extraordinary renditions, and the use of torture.

Domestically, the president's role in the Terri Schiavo case, the execution of his presidential prerogative in the appointment of John Bolton to the UN, and his continued efforts to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court have been no less controversial. It is clear that Bush's presidency must be filed, for better or worse, under “maximalist”.

But how bad is that?

The 19th century is - presidents Monroe, Jackson and Lincoln aside perhaps - generally viewed as a period of minimalistic executives. In part this was due to the fact that the understanding and the application of presidential power as established in the Constitution had to “mature” over time. With that came the fact that states were more important still than the overall federal level. Furthermore, national political party structures were only gradually coming to life, and the eventual party system took a while to settle down into its present mold.

So broadly speaking, the 19th century comprised the “formative” years of the presidential office, with the White House subsisting on relatively meager power and influence.

In the course of the 20th century things began to change, and from Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency onwards it is possible to speak of more activist, and thus maximalist interpretations of the executive branch.

They bore full fruit under President Nixon, who in the words of Arthur Schlesinger jr "was carrying the imperial presidency toward its ultimate form ... empowered by his mandate to make war or to make peace, to spend or to impound, to give out information or to hold it back, superseding congressional legislation by executive order, all in the name of a majority whose choice must prevail till it made another choice four years later".

If this sounds uncannily like the predicament America is in under George W. Bush, it must mean we have a precedent. So see what happens after Nixon: Presidents Ford and Carter take a rather more modest view of their presidency, and even the internationally very assertive presidents Reagan, Bush sr. and Clinton all remain bogged down domestically by a Congress that is occupied by their political opponents throughout most of their respective terms.

Ironies

A number of observations can be made on the basis of this short account. The first is that not all activist presidents are necessarily bad for the country. Roosevelt's legacy testifies to the benefit of a strong White House in times of national crisis.