.png)
 |
| Evan Clark Class of 2020 |
Out of all the talented speakers who have presented their ideas to McConnell Scholars this semester, one of my favorites has been Mr. Gene Healy. In his presentation, Healy explained his view of the American presidency, a view he expressed in the thought-provoking book, The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power. He argued that the modern American presidency has morphed into an overly powerful office that far outstrips the limited role the Framers of the Constitution designed for the president. In addition, he pointed out that executive power continues to grow at an alarming rate, especially during the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump.
Healy discussed how two particularly concerning areas in which presidential power has grown tremendously have been in war powers and in the use of executive orders. He referenced that the authorization for the use of military force that was passed after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 has been extended to justify presidential decisions to take a wide array of military actions in the Middle East without seeking congressional approval. This trend has continued throughout the Bush and Obama presidencies, and with President Trump’s recent airstrike against an Assad-regime airbase without consulting Congress, it shows no sign of stopping. Also, while Healy recognized the importance of executive orders in allowing for the president to coordinate actions of the executive branch of the federal government, he expressed displeasure at presidents’ increasing use of executive orders to create de facto laws by bypassing the legislative process. For example, President Nixon’s temporary freeze of prices and wages and President Obama’s attempt to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation were done by executive order, although both of these actions should have been done through congressional legislation.
These arguments illuminated what I had already come to believe through my study of history and politics, that the branch of the federal government most likely to produce a tyrant in twenty-first century America is the executive branch. Ironically, this observation appears to clash with the ideas of many of the Framers of the Constitution, such as Alexander Hamilton, who thought the legislative branch could dominate the other branches. The Framers were correct in realizing that legislatures can, at times, become tyrannical. Nevertheless, the expansions of presidential power throughout the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have made the president the central figure in American politics today, a leader who urges Congress to enact his or her agenda, rather than allow Congress to deliberate on legislation without executive interference. Healy even mentioned that Americans look to the president for guidance and see him or her as source of inspiration for their lives, a completely unconstitutional role of which the Framers would have never approved.
Since the presidents’ power continues to increase and neither Congress nor the courts appear interested in seriously limiting the growth of presidential power, Americans cannot ignore the threat that such executive power-grabs pose to the integrity of our constitutional government. It has become normal for presidents to issue executive orders that effectively make law, and if this norm is not questioned, the president is likely to assume a similar amount of legislative power to Congress over the next several decades. Such a situation would challenge the checks and balances established in the U.S. Constitution as never before. If the legislative and judicial branches do not constrain the president’s increasing authority, then a self-interested and cunning demagogue could become president within this century and use presidential war powers and executive orders to subvert the Constitution and become a despot, using executive orders to legislate and execute the laws. This hypothetical, despotic president would claim to be in accord with the Constitution, as he or she could use his or her exorbitant influence to convince the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution so loosely that it would allegedly allow for presidential despotism. In addition, such a president would appeal to popular dissatisfaction with a gridlocked Congress to justify his or her consolidation of power. The president could not only play into people’s lack of faith in a Congress that is wracked by partisanship to become a despot, but he or she could also use a national crisis as an occasion to assume dictatorial powers, assuring the public that he or she is merely restoring peace and prosperity to America.
Does this scenario sound familiar? For those who have studied Roman history, Octavian, better known as Caesar Augustus, became emperor in a way that differed from these hypotheticals, but that also showed striking similarities to them. In particular, the Roman state had been subjected to civil wars over much of the course of the first century B.C., and after the assassination of Julius Caesar, Octavian, his adopted son, eventually defeated all rivals to power with his victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C. The Senate allowed Octavian to maintain his unconstitutional powers after his victory, and while the Senate continued to exist, Octavian, who had been called Augustus by the Senate, held the real power. He justified his position as de facto monarch through a public image that he had restored the Roman Republic, and he refused to take on the name king, instead calling himself Princeps, or “First Citizen.” While this name might sound humble and modest, Augustus was nothing of the sort. His political cunning and his deceptive appearance to the Roman people allowed him to finish the process of transforming the Roman Republic into an empire.
Although I do not believe President Trump and other modern presidents have intended to increase their powers to make themselves tyrants, I nevertheless urge that we, as Americans, remain wary of the gradual expansion of executive power in the United States. We must learn from Rome’s example and not permit a demagogue or a conniver who makes him or herself look like a friend of liberties seize power and then use their popular mandate to betray the Constitution. We cannot permit our complacency with an overly-powerful president to degenerate into an apathetic submission to a despotic president. If we exercise civic virtue, actively participate in the political process, and elect virtuous candidates to office who are best qualified to make decisions that are in the best interests of all Americans, we can avert a catastrophic end to our republic. However, if we do not rise above our partisanship, remain ignorant of the constitutional balance between the three branches of the federal government, and desire equality above all else, we could lose our beloved republican government. If we do not alter our current path as a nation, we could see the rise of a dictator within this century who seduces a weak Congress and promises the people peace; food, fun, and frolic; and absolute equality at the expense of religious freedom and the freedom of speech.
This awful vision is not the America in which I want to live, and I trust it is not the America in which you want to live, either. We must not accept a tyrant in disguise, like Caesar Augustus, to win over sycophants within the government and make a mockery of our Constitution. So let us do our duty to our country, electing politicians of moral character who respect the checks and balances of the Constitution. For the survival of a republic depends first and foremost on the fortitude of its citizens to act in defense of their cherished values. If we summon up our fortitude and rise to the occasion, we do not have to fall into a similar trap as Rome, but can instead preserve our republic for generations to come.
Evan Clark, of Owensboro, Ky., is a freshman McConnell Scholar studying political science, Spanish, and history.