Like many other people, I have been reading poll results and media evaluations of the first year of Joe Biden’s presidency. I suspect that many others who spent decades teaching American Government, as I did, are moved to tears. How is it that so many people do not understand our governmental system and how it came to be that way? I will suggest some possible answers to that question and, later, attempt an accurate description of the system and the process by which it was created.
Two forms of hyperbole contribute to this misunderstanding. The first is the tendency of candidates for office to overpromise. “If elected, I will…” Or if they are running for reelection, “I passed” a particular program or benefit. In no case are such claims accurate in our system of government. The voting public and media “experts” appear to believe that they are accurate and are anxious to hold officials to account for failing to keep their promises.
In covering the President and other elected officials, print and broadcast media add their own hyperbolic spin to the process. Gratuitous adjectives and adverbs make stories more exciting and thus attract more readers, listeners, and viewers. Coverage must delivered with a tone of barely concealed excitement in order to hold our attention. Finally, the political process is most easily present as a zero-sum game in which there must be winners and losers.
This hyperbole inevitably results an exaggerated view of presidential power. This exaggeration is amply illustrated when a candidate announces that, “Only I can save America”, and large numbers of voters believe him. This is a view of the presidency described by Professor Brendan Nyhan as “The Green Lantern Theory.” [https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/joe-biden-and-green-lantern-theory-presidency-on-the-media]. In other words, the President as super-hero. For those of you who are older and not DC Comics fans, think “Mighty Mouse will save the day.”
In order to understand why these views are inaccurate, it only necessary to read the U.S. Constitution and to understand why it was written as it was. The Federalist Papers and a look at the political history of the late 18th Century in the U.S. will help a great deal. It was clear to the framers, given their experience with the Articles of Confederation, that a significant executive power was necessary to make government work. However, the phrase “executive power” raised specters of kings and emperors and such executives were to be avoided at all costs. The result, as most people remember from their school days was the separation of powers into three branches, each to provide a check on the other two.
A quick glance at the political dialogue of the 1790s reveals that this nervousness about executive power continued as the Constitution was implemented. Federalists such as Washington, Adams, and Hamilton were determined to have a real, significant executive branch. Antifederalists like Jefferson and Madison accused Washington of wanting to be a king. The debate continues to this day.
The important thing to recognize is that the Constitution works as intended. The President can do only those things that are permitted by the Constitution and/or authorized by legislation passed by Congress. The courts review both the laws and executive actions to determine their constitutionality. The President can cause legislation to be introduced to achieve a campaign “promise.” Congress may not approve the proposed legislation. Expecting the President to overcome congressional opposition through “leadership” and the use of his/her “bully pulpit” is one manifestation of the Green Lantern theory.
The courts have been willing to restrain the executive as well. For example, applicants for asylum are still forced to wait in Mexico because the Supreme Court stopped the executive branch from changing the policy without appropriate consultation with the states of Texas and Missouri which had challenged administrative action. The Court also invalidated the EPA vaccine mandate for large employers. While some members of the current Supreme Court have indicated support for expanded executive powers in the past, changes in party that controls the White House render the continuation of that support improbable.
How, then, do we evaluate the President? Did we agree with his or her stated goals in the first place? If not, then any failure to achieve those goals is a success. However, if we support those goals, we must ask a series of questions. Did the President even attempt to achieve a goal? Were there any positive achievements short of full success. What were the barriers that prevented full or partial success? Were those barriers systemic or could the President have overcome them?
There is more to the evaluation process, but that will be the subject of another post.