Customer Reviews

The Cult of the Presidency, Updated: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book, the second Cato Institute publication I have read, is as entertaining, engaging and refreshingly objective as it is thoughtful and well-researched (as far as I can judge from the wealth of endnotes, since I am not a political scientist). Alas, how thoroughly we have been indoctrinated from childhood to idolize our presidents -- the more powerful, the better -- to the point where our movie-hero expectations of them interfere with, and can even destroy, their ability to lead.

The U.S. president, in accordance with the worst fears of the Framers of the Constitution, seems to have indeed evolved into an elected king, with Congress usually as his handmaiden instead of his director (as the Framers intended), and with the electorate as an adoring fan club (viz. Elvis), or, in turn, a howling lynch mob (viz. Louis XVI)). However, the author does provide some reassurance that there is little danger of him/her becoming a de facto dictator in the future, with the army as junta.

Since I first heard a couple of thoughtful talks given on C-Span by Cato Institute members Daniel Griswold and David Boaz, I have let this non-profit (non-PAC) organization take me by the hand and lead me to a perch way up in the bleachers where I can now placidly observe the partisan ruckus on the floor of the political arena. Their purpose is libertarian, with a strong conservative bent (small "c"), but without the shrillness of the established parties and their adjuncts. I would also recommend Daniel Griswold's "Mad About Trade", a slender, well-researched and well-reasoned book (also quickly available from Amazon) supporting the many economic advantages of free growth of world markets and unrestricted U.S. participation in them.

I agree with Healy on so many points, and even where I don't, I am forced to find countering evidence. Engaging, significant: any person, liberal, conservative, libertarian, moderate, or independent should read this, if only for its research value.

This is a great overview of how the office of the president has enlarged in power and responsibilities, particularly in the twentieth century. The presidency began -- and for most of the nineteenth century with a few exceptions remained -- a relatively limited post with a few defined powers and responsibilities (commanding the armed forces should we be attacked or Congress declare war, carrying out the laws Congress passes, vetoing any bad laws they pass, and not a whole lot else.) The Framers of the Constitution clearly intended that Congress, and not the Executive, would be the more powerful branch. And yet today, people routinely say that the President "runs the country" and has de facto control of issues of war and peace, managing the economy, directing Congress, and many other things -- even such ridiculous things as keeping us safe from natural disaster, ridding the world of evil, 'uplifting our national soul' and the like.

Author Gene Healy chronicles how, from the Progressive era of the early twentieth century onward, the presidency has gathered ever-increasing power, responsibility, and prestige. Healy's basic argument is that Americans have been led to expect their presidents to solve all of their (and even the world's) problems in a virtually unlimited sense. Inevitably, presidents fail in this impossible endeavor. Presidents then respond by demanding (and usually getting) ever-increasing power to meet these unrealistic expectations of keeping America safe from everything (including all forms of violence, economic trouble, and even spiritual malaise.) Despite increased powers, they still can't fulfill their stated goal of solving all our problems. Thus they ask for yet more power. Repeat ad infinitum. The endpoint is where we are today -- an imperial presidency of staggering power that would make Louis XIV jealous.

As for where the blame should be apportioned for this state of affairs, Healy points the finger at a lot of people: presidents and presidential candidates for promising the impossible in order to garner votes; Congress, for wilfully abdicating much of its power and responsibility to the executive out of political cowardice; the media, for often treating the president like a superhero celebrity; and academia, for glorifying aggressive, power-grabbing presidents while denigrating those who acted with restraint. But ultimately, Healy says, we the people are the most to blame, for having the political immaturity to continue to believe in this Cult, despite the fact that its Leader -- regardless of who it may be at the moment -- always fails to live up to the hype.

The book is very current -- roughly half deals with the last decade. (In fact, one of the few complaints I had about the book was that I thought the historical analysis could have been a bit deeper in some regards -- for example, Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley, Hoover, and Reagan, to name a few, don't get enough attention for their contributions to growing the office. However, the book was still so strong overall that I couldn't bring myself to dock a star for that minor quibble.) The paperback edition, which is the one I read, also has an epilogue about the first year or so of the Obama presidency, and how he seems likely to fall into Healy's pattern of unrealistic expectations followed by disappointment and disillusion. (Just look at what has happend to Obama's poll numbers since he's been elected.)

Healy comes at the subject from a libertarian/strict constructionist point of view, but his analysis is nonpartisan -- both Republican and Democratic party hacks will have their feathers ruffled.

CULT OF THE PRESIDENCY is very well-written and well-researched, and I can't recommend it highly enough.