The Militant Moderate

The question of the “imperial presidency” has been raised again – this time about the tenure of George W. Bush.  This is not a matter of the accoutrements of office or his personal manners.  In the case of Mr. Bush, it is said that he has fashioned his presidency after that of President Richard Nixon, who was the last to have an “imperial presidency.”  This term signifies the level of power which the president attempts to wield in that office.  

President Nixon assumed that the president could do almost anything, including suborning the hiring of a group of burglars to break into a doctor’s office and the democrat party headquarters.  President Bush assumes that the power of the presidency includes ordering monitoring of the conversations of American citizens without court sanction, setting up prisons outside the U.S., abrogating treaties on prisoners, and suspending the right of habeas corpus and speedy trial.  All this, if he believes it makes the nation safer, even though it is contrary to constitutional law.  

This old notion that “the king can do no wrong” is the basis for the term “imperial presidency.”  It is also the reason we have documents such as the Magna Charta of 1215 and the Constitution of the United States (ratified 1789) -- limiting executive powers.  

The “imperial presidency” is different from a “regal presidency,” a description often used in reference to the “Camelot” years of John F. Kennedy.  The elegance with which the affairs of state were conducted, and the flourishing of the arts during those years, brought the accolades of “Camelot.”  It appeared to the Militant Moderate that President Clinton sought to reclaim certain characteristics of the regal presidency.  It was no secret that he was a great admirer of JFK.  But regal has to do with the style of that high office, not the exercise of questionable powers.  

Reader’s Warning   --- Do not continue if you find history boring!  

But the general concept of the “imperial presidency” goes much deeper.  It has a history of extensive attention of some of the best minds of the western world over several centuries.  Without being unduly pedagogical, although restraint is difficult for the MM, let us look briefly into a litany of distinguished background sources on the exercise of governmental authority.  

Unfortunately, the Bible itself has been used over many centuries to justify citizen obeisance to any kind of government, and there has been strong criticism of religion for that reason.  The “render unto Caesar” quote, and the instructions to obey those appointed in secular authority, are cited.  The failure of Christianity to condemn abhorrent activities condoned by government, such as slavery, has always raised questions among philosophers.  

The feudal system, however, was justified more on the basis of physical and economic security.  If the peasant tilled the soil for lord of the castle on the hill, that lord promised in return to feed his family and to organize these same peasants and fight to protect the land, castle facilities, and people against enemies.  So, the peasants gave up freedom and proceeds of their labor for food and protection.  The lords in turn gave up some freedom and assets to those of higher order, such as the king.  Peasants had no rights, no land, and little freedom.  

Louis XIV was the epitome of the era of “divine right of kings” to rule, also called the philosophy of “absolutism.”  Good King Louis was said to have uttered, “I am the State.”  He assumed absolute power from God.  (Is it not disconcerting when our president claims to be “led by God” in governmental decisions?)  But Louis XIV was a skilled governor and conducted affairs with great efficiency.  It has often been said that people are tolerant of dictatorships as long as the trains run on time and the utilities work.  But governing by the rule of “absolutism” was soon brought to downfall by the execution of Charles I in 1649 and Louis XVI in 1793 when the citizens of England and France became dissatisfied, rebelled, and put those monarchs on trial.  

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, a royalist who spent time in exile during 1640-60 in the court of Louis XIV and tutored the next English king (Charles II) there, wrote in support of the hereditary right of kings to govern, keeping order and security for the populace.  A contemporary, John Locke, wrote in opposition saying that the authority to govern comes from the people, and that only a government which behaves in a morally responsible way toward people’s freedoms and property has a right to remain in power.  Importantly, he held that government could not violate the rights of the people, even though it might have majority support.  

The French philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau, had a profound effect on political thought with the publishing of “The Social Contract” in 1759.  His premise was that the people have entered into a contract with government to provide certain needed services which include order, peace, protection of person and property, and in return give up certain freedoms to do mayhem to one another’s person or property.  Rousseau was specific in the view that government derives its authority from the people, not from God.  Similar to Locke, he believed that whenever government failed to perform its contractual functions properly, it was the right of the people to take it down.  

Why is this important to Americans, as well as to Europeans?  Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence, was a devotee of the philosophy of Locke and Rousseau, and these ideas are imbedded there and in our Constitution – the basic document of law.  Our government is founded upon those ideas of democracy.*   These documents, especially the Bill of Rights, assure that the government cannot violate the basic rights of citizens – however popular that might be with a majority.  The “system of checks and balances” assigns the role of guarantor to the judiciary and also to the Congress for impeachment.  

I am sorry, Mr. President, but the question of the “imperial presidency” has been argued before, and you lost -- centuries before you were born.  The Militant Moderate respectfully suggests that you take cognizance of this, and that you concentrate on being a leader who keeps the toilets flushing and the trains of the republic running on time.  

               ………….    Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA: The Militant Moderate  

* Note for scholars:  While the words in the Declaration “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” makes a reference to God, this reference was added to Jefferson’s original manuscript.  Jefferson preferred no wording which might recognize “divine rights,” and he emphasized the right of the people to repudiate the King’s rule.  Further, it is well to note that the Preamble of the Constitution begins, “We the people of the United States ……...”  It was made clear that “the people” were ordaining this government.  While “blessings” for posterity were acceptable, divine rights or divine origins of the government were excluded.  God is not mentioned in the Constitution.