The Imperial Presidency [Paperback]

Jr. Arthur M. Schlesinger (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: August 12, 2004

From two-time Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., comes one of the most important and influential investigations of the American presidency. The Imperial Presidency traces the growth of presidential power over two centuries, from George Washington to George W. Bush, examining how it has both served and harmed the Constitution and what Americans can do about it in years to come. The book that gave the phrase “imperial presidency” to the language, this is a work of “substantial scholarship written with lucidity, charm, and wit” (The New Yorker).

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER, JR., the author of sixteen books, was a renowned historian and social critic. He twice won the Pulitzer Prize, in 1946 for The Age of Jackson and in 1966 for A Thousand Days. He was also the winner of the National Book Award for both A Thousand Days and Robert Kennedy and His Times (1979). In 1998 he was awarded the prestigious National Humanities Medal.

Product Details

• Paperback: 624 pages
• Publisher: Mariner Books; Reprint edition (August 12, 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0618420010
• ISBN-13: 978-0618420018
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.3 x 1.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (10 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #328,668 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

63 of 70 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant and important. December 25, 2000

By Mike Baum VINE™ VOICE

Format:Hardcover

Whatever his shortcomings (see below), historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. has a great mind and writes with a silver pen. I am immensely impressed with his book on the growth of presidential power in America and cannot imagine a better introduction to my future studies on this important subject.

The book's organization is superb. Appropriately, it first discusses the Founding Fathers' likely intentions in regard to the Presidency and where they disagreed amongst themselves. Next it explains the Presidency and its war power, tracing its development through the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, and paying special attention to the Second World War, the Korean War and Vietnam. Most of a 64-page chapter is devoted to President Richard M. Nixon's radical ideas and practices. Democracy and foreign policy is then treated, followed by the Presidency and its powers of secrecy, and finally, the Presidency and its future. As these subjects are dealt with, many facts are thrown at the reader, the totality being hard to absorb. Fortunately, nothing is explained in isolation. The author constantly backtracks, providing new historical context and rehashing material already covered. This practice, plus good organization and a high degree of literary skill (Dr. Schlesinger can *write*), make this book highly readable.

Of particular interest is Dr. Schlesinger's discussion of philosopher John Locke's idea of presidential prerogative, of which I was previously unaware (and which I am still mulling over). This is the view that extraordinary national emergencies create temporary exceptions to normal constitutional restrictions on a president's power to act. This prerogative is supposed to come into play during clear threats to the republic that require immediate action and that are recognized by Congress and the people as legitimate emergencies; a president is also supposed to submit himself to the judgment of Congress (e.g., for possible impeachment) after exercising this prerogative, and not pretend that he had been acting within the Constitution (which might set a dangerous precedent). This idea is important because of its influence on the Founding Fathers, who were steeped in Locke, and because of its consequences. Correctly or not, President Abraham Lincoln invoked it during the Civil War, as did President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II. President Richard M. Nixon also made use of it... with far less justification.

Dr. Schlesinger's treatment of President Nixon, the size of whose index entry dwarfs that of any other topic in the book, is also fascinating. Dr. Schlesinger clearly is appalled by the man and devotes many pages to his schenanigans and his almost monarchical views of Presidential power. He demonstrates just how significant a departure was the Presidency under Nixon from the Presidency as conceived by the Founding Fathers. In a statement that is very true, Dr. Schlesinger calls Nixon's Presidency "a culmination, not an aberration, and potentially the best thing to have happened to the Presidency in a long time" (paraphrasing from memory, since I lost the page). It is unfortunate that Congress did not make the most of Watergate and put the Presidency into its proper place (e.g., see its shameful War Powers Act or the Presidency of Bill Clinton). This, Congress's own role in the expansion of Presidential power (its unwise, Cold War-inspired delegation of foreign policy discretion to the Presidency, its evasion of responsibility, its cowardice, etc.), is also given just and ample treatment.

I am concerned about Dr. Schlesinger's possible biases. He discloses, for example, that he was an aide in President John F. Kennedy's administration, and indeed his view of Kennedy's Presidency is relatively rosey. He is also kind to President Roosevelt and must admire him, else he would not be a leading member of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. And as David S. Wyman contends in his definitive history of America's response to the Holocaust, *The Abandonment of the Jews*, Dr. Schlesinger has long maintained (though it does not come up in this volume) that Roosevelt did all he could to save European Jews from the Nazis during World War II--in utter contradiction of the facts.

My main criticism of *The Imperial Presidency* is theoretical. I am a strict constructionist, Dr. Schlesinger believes in a looser, evolutionary interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. He says as much in his first chapter. Quoting President Woodrow Wilson--that despot of democracy whose own collectivist impulses and subversion of the Constitution forced our American boys into the bloody trenches of a European war--he objects to the Constitution's being treated as "a mere legal document, to be read as a will or contract," and advocates that its meaning be determined "by the exigencies and the new aspects of life itself." I will state here simply that under this view of the Constitution, the document's meaning becomes anything anybody at any time wishes it to be--in which case it loses all utility, we might as well have no Constitution and kiss our individual rights goodbye to unscrupulous men and prevailing philosophies that might not, in fact, be in our best interest. We have the power of Amendment for a reason. I dare not speculate how Dr. Schlesinger's beliefs might have affected his scholarship. I will note with irony, however, that the constitutional views he expouses have greatly contributed to the "imperial presidency" he so decries. Was Nixon the chief culprit in Watergate--or was he the culmination of intellectuals like Dr. Schlesinger?

Despite these criticisms, there is more good in *The Imperial Presidency* than bad. I will repeatedly refer back to it whenever I have questions about what powers our presidents have and how they got them. I might buy a more recent edition. Mine was published shortly after Watergate, the constitutional crisis that occasioned the book's writing, but according to Amazon.com's description of it, it is supposed to cover the Presidency through Ronald Reagan. My curiosity is piqued.

22 of 25 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Back and Improved...At Last! October 28, 2004

By G M. Stathis VINE™ VOICE

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

The year before George W. Bush took office as president I attended a professional conference where a graduate student offered a paper that posed the question whether Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s "Imperial Presidency" was still valid. Quite a debate ensued. Today, in the wake of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, and its application in Iraq, I am compelled to offer that this revised volume, with new introduction, answers the previous question with a resounding yea. This has been a very important volume in the study of the presidency, especially regarding the constitution, foreign policy, and war. In the shadow of the Iraqi affair, I would go one step further and say it is a vital work in these troubled times. No, the era of the Imperial Presidency never really went away; and yes, it is a vital concern for the future of the republic and global stability. Schlesinger has recognized this and once again warns us of pending dangers.

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Can this country be saved? June 20, 2012

By William Whipple III VINE™ VOICE

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

Note: The Imperial Presidency was published in 1973, not long before President Nixon resigned over the Watergate scandal. The author subsequently revisited the theme several times, as attested to by the epilogue (1989) and first introduction (2004) in this edition.

As Schlesinger sees it, there is bound to be some jockeying for power under the US Constitution, which provides for a separation of powers between the three branches of government. Given the president's ability to act quickly and decisively, the pendulum generally swings in favor of the Executive Branch when it comes to military matters or international relations. Congress may play a more prominent role in the domestic arena.

Numerous illustrations are presented of how the roles of Congress and the president have fluctuated since 1789. Many issues between the branches that we tend to view as of recent vintage have come up before - truly, as the saying goes, "there is nothing new under the sun."

The powers of the presidency greatly expanded during the Great Depression and World War II, due in part to the challenges faced by the nation and in part to FDR's personality.

After WWII, the pendulum did not swing back to more congressional control as it had after previous wars; the US was now a world power engaged in a Cold War with the USSR. Truman and Johnson tended to exercise their powers aggressively in the international arena and resist compromises with political opponents. Eisenhower was no fan of big government, but he was fond of keeping secrets. Kennedy (in whose White House Schlesinger served) was open-minded and straightforward, a real straight shooter. Leaving aside differences in style and substance of the individual presidents, the power of the presidency was generally on the rise.

One sign was steady growth in the White House staff, no longer the "eyes and ears of the president" so much as decision-makers in their own right who were able to function without being subject to congressional oversight. And two good-sized wars (Korea, Vietnam et al.) were waged without being declared by Congress.

The "Imperial Presidency" reached its zenith under Nixon, who evidently thought the president, once elected, could set and execute national policies without seeking approval from Congress or anyone else. It was as though Nixon had concluded, Schlesinger suggests, that the separation of powers provided for in the Constitution was outmoded and should be quietly scrapped. Whatever the merits of such a view, it was never shared with the American people - who might not have agreed. Moreover, Nixon's behavior reflected his glaring personality flaws.

Congress and others pushed back, Nixon was ousted, and life went on. It would be "many, many years," Schlesinger wrote in 1973, "before another White House staff would dare take the liberties with the Constitution and the laws the Nixon White House had taken." Schlesinger continued to support a strong presidency within the constitutional framework, however, on grounds that Congress is better suited to react to the president's recommendations than to play the lead role itself.

Between the 1973 book and the 1989 epilogue, Schlesinger rejects a series of ideas for changing the system - parliamentary system, single six-year term of office for presidents, balanced budget amendment, line item veto, scrapping the electoral college, etc. He seems more open (perhaps reflecting his political views) to repealing the 22nd Amendment (2-term limit for presidents) and authorizing presidents to vary tax rates or engage in stimulus spending as economic circumstances may require.

In the 2004 introduction, at the age of 87, Schlesinger laments that "once again, international crisis [starting with 9/11] has resurrected the Imperial Presidency." Witness the Patriot Act - wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - activities of Attorney General John Ashcroft - alleged domestic spying - Gitmo - Abu Ghraib - the most secretive administration since Nixon. He concludes with a prediction: "the Imperial Presidency redux is likely to continue messing things up" for a while, but "democracy's singular virtue - its capacity for self-correction - will one day swing into action."

Students of American history should enjoy this book. It is well written and seems ably researched. The point is well taken that no set of rules will solve every problem likely to come up so political leaders must be held accountable for acting reasonably.

The issue of presidential overreaching remains a live concern. If Schlesinger were still alive (he passed in 2007), it would be interesting to know what he would make of some of the current president's actions.

On the other hand, the conclusion that the country can keep rocking along with the present system is dissatisfying. And by focusing so intently on presidential power, Schlesinger, tends to overlook other dangerous trends - such as the seemingly inexorable growth of a national welfare state and federal bureaucracies - which may prove far harder to fight.