Imperial vs Imperilled Presidency (AQA A-Level Politics): Revision Notes
Imperial vs Imperilled Presidency
Introduction to the debate
The nature of presidential power in the USA has been debated since 1973, when Professor Arthur Schlesinger argued that President Richard Nixon's presidency (1969-74) was imperial in character. This debate continues today, with scholars disagreeing about whether the presidency is too powerful or too constrained.
The imperial vs imperilled presidency debate centers on two opposing views of presidential power in the American constitutional system.
Imperial presidency refers to the idea that the presidency has an emperor-like character, where presidents dominate Congress and conduct foreign policy independently of the legislature. This type of presidency overrides the checks and balances that Congress should provide and goes beyond the powers intended by the Founding Fathers.
Imperilled presidency describes the idea that the presidency is weak, with its effectiveness limited by Congress and an excessively large federal bureaucracy that prevents it from taking action.
The origins: Nixon's imperial presidency
Schlesinger identified several 'imperial' actions taken by President Nixon:
-
He authorised military intervention in Cambodia and Laos without informing Congress.
-
The Watergate scandal revealed his use of corrupt and illegal methods to advance his own interests.
-
He continued the Vietnam War without congressional approval, even after 1971 when Congress revoked the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (which had given the president authority to take military action in Vietnam since 1964).
These actions demonstrated how a president could bypass constitutional checks and balances, acting independently of Congress in ways the Founding Fathers had not intended. This established the foundation for the ongoing debate about presidential power.
Ford's imperilled presidency response
In response to Schlesinger's theory, President Gerald Ford (1974-77) argued that the presidency was actually imperilled. He made several claims about limitations on presidential effectiveness:
-
Congress had responded to Nixon's failings by passing new laws restricting presidential powers. The War Powers Act 1973 was designed to force presidents to obtain congressional approval before ordering military action.
-
The federal bureaucracy's size made it difficult for presidents to ensure their wishes were properly carried out. Ford, as a Republican, felt the bureaucracy was working against his agenda to reduce government intervention and spending.
This created an ongoing debate: are presidents too powerful, or do they face too many constraints?
Contemporary debate on presidential power
In recent years, commentators have argued that Presidents George W. Bush, Obama and Trump all increased presidential power. However, scholars like Cal Mackenzie have taken the opposite view, highlighting weaknesses of the modern presidency in his 2016 book The Imperilled Presidency: Presidential Leadership in the 21st Century. The debate has focused on several key issues.
Military action
Whilst presidents usually seek congressional approval for military action, this doesn't always happen. The War Powers Act 1973 states that presidents must have congressional authorisation for the use of US armed forces in hostilities. However, there have been violations:
- President Clinton's use of US troops in NATO peacekeeping missions in the 1990s was argued to violate the Act.
- President Obama's 2011 military intervention in Libya was also considered a violation.
Limitations of the War Powers Act
These examples suggest that presidents can still act imperially in military matters, despite congressional attempts to limit this power. The Act has proven difficult to enforce when presidents choose to circumvent it.
Emergency powers
Declaring a national emergency allows a president to unlock federal funding and access more than a hundred powers granted by Congress for emergency situations. Presidents have used these powers in significant ways:
- Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the internment of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War.
- Following the 9/11 terror attacks, George W. Bush authorised extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects, their detention without trial at Guantanamo Bay, and interrogation techniques widely criticised as torture.
- Obama rejected torture but didn't close Guantanamo Bay, and his 'targeted killing' programme allowed him to launch ten times more unmanned drone strikes in the Middle East and Asia than his predecessor.
- Trump declared a national emergency in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and banned US citizens from travelling to European countries.
The National Emergencies Act 1976 attempted to limit presidential power by requiring any declaration of emergency to be accompanied by a legal justification and congressional review every six months. However, it had little impact. More than 30 national emergencies remained active in 2020.
Example: Trump's Border Wall Emergency Declaration
The lack of a clear definition of an emergency allowed Trump to declare a national emergency in February 2019 to secure funding for his planned border wall.
Congressional Response: Congress twice voted to end the state of emergency.
Presidential Counter: Trump used his veto power to overrule Congress each time.
Outcome: This demonstrates how emergency powers can enhance presidential authority even in the face of congressional opposition.
The rise of direct authority
The use of executive orders, signing statements and executive agreements shows presidents' willingness to stretch their powers. However, this could be seen as an expression of weakness rather than strength. Direct authority is often a lesser alternative to legislation when presidents lack congressional support, and can easily be overridden by future presidents.
The Paradox of Direct Authority
This creates an interesting paradox: when presidents use direct authority extensively, it might indicate they lack the power to work effectively with Congress, suggesting an imperilled rather than imperial presidency.
Opposition from Congress
Frequent gridlock, particularly during periods of divided government (when different parties control the presidency and one or both chambers of Congress), provides strong evidence for an imperilled presidency. Presidents are often forced to make budgetary compromises to avoid a government shutdown.
Presidents Reagan, George W. Bush and Trump all blamed Congress for forcing them to sign budgets that increased the size of the deficit. When shutdowns do occur, they serve as stark reminders of the limitations of presidential power.
Trump's 2019 impeachment might suggest that the president's position was imperilled by opposition from the House of Representatives. However, his 2020 trial and acquittal by the Republican-controlled Senate, particularly its decision not to hear new evidence, demonstrates the limitations of Congress in opposing the president if one chamber is controlled by the president's party.
The Lame Duck President
Every two-term presidency is imperilled to some extent towards the end of the second term, when the president becomes a lame duck. A lame duck president occurs when the president has lost most of their political power and struggles to implement policy objectives. This typically happens in the latter part of a president's second term, when their political influence is limited by the constitutional two-term limit.
Presidential style
Different presidents have adopted varying styles of leadership. Ronald Reagan (1981-89) had a more imperial style than Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, particularly in foreign policy where he led the West to victory at the end of the Cold War. Both George W. Bush and Obama used direct authority widely. However, all these presidents operated within the conventional range of presidential style, despite their political differences.
Trump and the limitations of presidential power
Trump's presidency represented a significant breach with conventional presidential style. He was more imperial than any previous modern president:
- He used executive orders to cancel major international agreements signed by his predecessor.
- He declared a national emergency to fund his border wall.
- He took to Twitter to conduct foreign policy and sack advisers.
- He employed his son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka Trump as advisers, despite their lack of government experience, treating the presidency as an extension of his business empire.
- His 2018 tweet claimed he had an 'absolute right' to pardon himself, effectively claiming complete impunity from the law.
- During the COVID-19 crisis, Trump claimed 'total authority' over the states, seemingly ignoring the concept of federalism.
Constitutional Limits Prevail
Despite Trump's imperial style, presidential powers remained limited by constitutional checks and balances. Congress provides the most significant limitation, particularly during divided government, forcing presidents to rely on direct authority and stretching of implied powers to bypass Congress. The states' reserved powers are protected by the Constitution, which is why Trump was forced to allow state governors to respond individually to the COVID-19 crisis, despite his rhetoric.
At the end of his presidency, Trump was unable to cling onto power. Legal challenges failed to overturn the 2020 presidential election result, and his address to supporters before the Capitol insurrection led to his second impeachment. Regardless of his imperious tendencies, Trump was forced to leave office and US democracy was preserved.
Expansion of the federal government
The size and scope of the federal bureaucracy has increased since the 1970s, at the behest of presidents. Most analysis suggests this enhances presidential power rather than, as Ford claimed, imperilling it. A larger federal bureaucracy gives presidents more resources and personnel to implement their agenda.
Comparing the arguments
The debate between imperial and imperilled presidency perspectives continues because evidence exists for both positions. Whether the presidency appears imperial or imperilled often depends on circumstances including:
- Whether government is unified or divided
- The president's relationship with Congress
- Public approval ratings
- External events and crises
- The stage of the president's term
- The president's individual style and approach
Key Points to Remember:
- Imperial presidency suggests presidents have emperor-like power, dominating Congress and acting independently, whilst imperilled presidency argues presidents are constrained by Congress and bureaucracy.
- Arthur Schlesinger identified Nixon's presidency (1969-74) as imperial due to unauthorised military actions and the Watergate scandal; Gerald Ford responded by arguing the presidency was imperilled.
- The War Powers Act 1973 attempted to limit presidential military action, but presidents have continued to act without full congressional approval in some cases.
- Emergency powers allow presidents to unlock funding and special authorities, with examples from FDR's Japanese-American internment to Trump's COVID-19 response and border wall funding.
- Direct authority (executive orders, agreements) can be seen as both strength and weakness - it bypasses Congress but suggests inability to secure legislation.
- Congressional opposition, particularly during divided government, creates gridlock and forces compromises, with government shutdowns demonstrating presidential limitations.
- The lame duck period towards the end of a second term imperils all two-term presidents as their political influence wanes.
- Presidential style varies significantly, with Trump representing the most imperial modern presidency, though constitutional checks ultimately limited his power and he was forced to leave office.