Executive Power

[Xonoahbin]

I'd post a poll, but I think it'd come out with too many options were I being fair with the possibilities. What I want to know is this: what would you identify as your political leaning and how do you feel about the state of executive power in the United States?

I urge you not to think of it solely as the executive power of Barack Obama, but the executive power of any president that could currently be in office. So, instead of thinking of it as "Barack Obama has too much power!" I hope you might think of "The presidency of the United States as it stands has too much power!" Or it could be the converse. Your call.

Here's what I'd propose so we can try to make it simple and have dialogue based on these distinctions: post a short snippet about your leaning, a short snippet about the state of executive power, and a longer justification or explanation below if you so choose. Here's what I have to say, for example.

Leaning: libertarian/liberal lean. I see libertarianism not as the utopia for society, but as the best way to come to agreements among people so as to better our society. Too much party power just minimizes the people's prerogative.

Executive power: is incredibly excessive. The president has too many powers and they are insufficiently checked.

Rationale: I want to see change by way of the larger populace, not by way of one person in the Oval Office. Granted, Congress is incredibly ineffective, but unless it's an immediate national security emergency that absolutely cannot be solved quickly enough without unilateral action, I want it to go to a vote in Congress. The people don't like the result of that vote? Better replace your representatives and get your voice heard as much as possible. People are probably jaded on caring about elected officials because they seem both incompetent and lacking in power. Let the legislative branch check the President better (and the judicial branch as well) and I think we could see bad executive policies become points of deliberation, as opposed to opportunities to whine and do nothing.

I'm asking this question because I'm frankly interested to see whether people generally view executive power as too expansive in the United States. It's been my observation that both liberals and conservatives are fine with the status quo of executive power as long as it's their guy in office. That frankly concerns me.

 

[Craig234]

I'm on the progressive side politically.

On executive power, it gets a bit complicated. One thing we have to watch for is confusing or biasing our position on whether we agree with the policy being done.

On the one hand, I want the executive to have the power to do a lot in our society - for example, to 'stand up' to big business representing the people.

Not surprisingly, 'conservatives', at least the ones higher on the food chain, tend to want the opposite - to tie the hands of government and the people to affect them.

Note this is a power I'd like to see used more by Obama, who seems to have little interest in it - but one used well by a figure like FDR, or a JFK.

On the other hand, I see excesses that concern me - from both Bush and Obama as examples.

Again, I have to take out 'do I agree with the policy'. I can't say 'I want the President to invade a bad country I agree with, not not able to invade a country I like'.

To try to answer your question, I'd say I'm most concerned about the power of government being gutted by special interests who want to restrict the power of the people. To make 'big business' more powerful than government, a battle since the founding of the country that business has been steadily winning.

Overall, I'd have to say I'm reasonably satisfied - which doesn't mean I'm ok with some things going on. It just means I think the answer lies elsewhere than 'powers of the office'. To why they are used badly at times. To how we elect people who owe far more to donors than voters.

In the S&L crisis, over a thousand people were convicted; in the larger banking scandal of 2008, zero have been. The powers of government aren't what changed.

To your last point - I agree. I see a lot of liberals who do not adjust for whether they agree with the policy - they are happy for all kinds of powers for Obama that they strongly oppose for a Republican. (I think the same exists for the other side on this one). But I think the 'tyrant' and 'dictator' name-calling about Obama is hyperbole.

We also have to remember that some of the voices criticizing the powers are libertarian who have a radically different and reduced view of what government 'should' be.

edit - to try to concisely say this, I'd lean towards wanting the powers to fit what a good President should have, rather than cripple the powers because of a bad President's abuse.

If we didn't do that, we'd have to limit the powers to ones we want for a Richard Nixon, and leave the president tied and gagged.

 

[werepossum]

I consider myself to be conservative, though in personal liberty I tend to be highly liberal. I consider that as libertarian (also the way I usually vote) but every political quiz I take seems to disagree. I dislike executive orders. I especially dislike signing statements. A President's job with regard to legislation is to sign it or veto it; he should not be able to unilaterally change the law by adding a signing statement. Executive power as a whole is a different matter; it has increased because of the growth in government, much of which is at least somewhat under the control of the President. I generally oppose that growth, but at least in Obama's case it's somewhat understandable due to our current gridlock. (Although full disclosure, I generally like gridlock. No one's life, liberty or property is safe when Congress is in session, and increasingly we're forced to add the President and our courts to that.

If your question is broader, do we support a relatively strong President versus a relatively weak Prime Minister chief executive, I generally prefer the relatively strong President, with the caveat that power inevitably corrupts and must therefore be watched like a hawk.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Lean: Ontologically Marxist, epistemically humble

ie, while the material conditions of the workers are created by ideological super-structures designed to repress them; To say I know THE TRUTH is arrogant at best and thus to create laws that force others to do what I "think is right" is more often than not going to be stupid: so I require a very strong argument before I accept the utilization of state-power to infringe upon liberty.

Executive power is a manifestation of the will of the people and embodied political-military-corporate interests. It is, thus, over used just as much state power is over used, in service of perpetuating the control of the powerful over the individual. It is in rare circumstances (ie many of Richard Nixon's uses of executive power) that we see an executive that is fundamentally a good man utilizing his power to better society.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm center left socially and really don't lean anyway fiscally (I subscribe to keynesian economics but change if the data should something else).

Concerning executive power, the president is too weak in some aspect and too powerful in others. Specifically, his ability to use the military, CIA, DHS, etc isn't checked enough but his ability to manage fiscal matters has been limited since Nixon (see the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act), although the ACT was passed because of presidential abuse. Raising the debt ceiling is another stupid power the president should have (or just be done with the whole issue and have it be automatic).

My thoughts on executive power go like this, the president should have all the power he needs to keep congress and the judicial branch in check and functioning correctly as well as any powers to keep America safe so long as they can be kept in check by congress and the judicial branch.

Unchecked powers or abuse of power at any branch of the government isn't good.

 

[Xonoahbin]

If your question is broader, do we support a relatively strong President versus a relatively weak Prime Minister chief executive, I generally prefer the relatively strong President, with the caveat that power inevitably corrupts and must therefore be watched like a hawk.

Interesting question, actually. That wasn't necessarily my intent, but I think it's a good thought experiment. Personally I'd probably prefer the weaker executive in the PM model. Maybe I wouldn't prefer it that way if checks and balances still worked here in the US.

 

[skyking]

I agree there is too much power there to abuse, but the rest of the system would need such a complete overhaul as to be untenable.
I must compliment you on your question and thread, this has been a great read.

 

[blankslate]

The thing is that presidents cannot use executive orders to create new laws they can only determine how existing laws are carried out when it comes to domestic policies.

For example if there take a clean water law that is passed. Unless the language of the law is very specific the president can say we're making cleaning up mercury in the streams and rivers before we worry about other pollutants. Or he might say mercury isn't so much a priority as is another detrimental substance.

If the president has too much power it's because Congress has passed laws that did not put enough limits on how they could be carried out.

As for my views I'm socially liberal. Fiscally I'd like to reign in spending however I agree with Bruce Bartlett who has said that different fiscal problems require different fiscal solutions. Given that we've moved from a manufacturing to a service industry we need to find a way to increase demand amongst consumers because people who don't spend leads to businesses having weak sales.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on much but I think he is absolutely on the money when he talks about blowback and unintended consequences from certain foreign policy decisions and has very point about excessive spending on arguably too many foreign military bases.