Representin' You

http://bang-on-wholesale.com/products/ObamaRepresent_1195.jpeg

According to President Harry Truman, “The president is the representative of the whole nation and he’s the only lobbyist that all the one hundred and sixty million people in the country have.” President Truman believed that the president was the representative of the whole nation, but in what capacity? The framers of our constitution envisioned the president as a limited executive whose actions could be checked most often by Congress (see Federalist 47). However, because of unforeseen evolutions within political institutions (most notably the creation of political parties), it became more difficult to determine exactly whom the president should represent. Should he represent all citizens’ interests, the electorate, or merely his own political party?

I agree with the Lockean and Hobbesian views of representation, which dictates that total decision-making power rests in the hands of the representatives. Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government, goes even further by saying that representatives, more specifically, “the executor of the laws, having the power in his hands, has by the common law of nature, a right to make use of it for the good of the society.” However, I also believe that representatives must also listen to the concerns of their constituents and take them into consideration. By this reasoning, I believe that the executive should represent all individuals of the nation and their respective groups: the citizens, the electorate, and the party.

The definition of “represent” in this nature is means to act on behalf of all Americans and their respective groups placing the best interest of society at the forefront of the decision-making process through their individual beliefs while carefully examining society’s concerns. Therefore, based on this definition, a “representative” is an individual elected by the people who, in doing so, tacitly consent to accept the decisions that they make on their behalf. The representative must also make decisions based on the interest of the good of society and take into consideration the thoughts and apprehensions of the constituents that they represent.

The president must represent all people in his policymaking and actions in which he partakes. For example, the president when attempting to improve the educational system is acting in the best interests of all citizens by providing a more educated society. There are also instances where the president must represent the electorate. President Obama lobbying for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a direct appeal to his homosexual electorate that was unhappy with the lack of progress being made on gay rights. Finally, the president also has to represent the interest of his party members. If he does not, chances exist that incumbent president will face a primary challenge from a member of his own party that could potentially harm his chances of reelection or otherwise strain the relationship between himself and his party (See Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy in 1980).

The president cannot and should not take the stance of citizens at all times, as demonstrated by the Canes-Wrone Shotts article. It is not conceivable that citizens fully understand every issue and therefore the president must make individual decisions. This is the basis for the president acting as a politico representative. Depending on the popular saliency of the issues the president will act as wither a trustee or a delegate. For example, on issues like crime, health, and social security, matters that have policy congruence above 90%, the president is more likely to act as a delegate because citizens are more informed. Whereas, on subjects of ground transportation, parks, and space, all issues that have policy congruence below 35%, the president is going to act as a trustee and use his knowledge and the insight of those around him to support a policy that will put at the forefront, what he believes is in the best interest of society. One issue that can arise from this type of delegate is confusion on behalf of the president to know when to act as a delegate and when to act as a trustee. For example, if the president made his ascendency to the White House by overcoming poverty and urban decay, he may believe that his experience in those situations allows him to act as a trustee in that situation. Although his experiences may be consistent with such an environment, it is an inaccurate representation of individuals in all cities that face poverty and he may not do what is in the best interest of those constituents.

I believe that it is unreasonable to expect the president to not be descriptively representative in some instances because this is social/demographical group that the president belongs to and associates with. However, this does cause certain problems. For example, President Obama cannot reasonably pursue a “black agenda” without being labeled a racist by individuals of the political elite and not pursuing said agenda has caused him to lose credibility amongst the African American electorate. The positives associated with descriptive representation cannot be overstated. Sticking with the example of President Obama, we see that the same African American demographic that is unhappy with the president is the same group that helped to elect him with historical numbers in the 2008 election.

The idea of representation is not new. From early on, individuals have been acting on the behalf of others and the role of a representative has always been crucial to the survival of democracy, so long as representatives are acting on behalf of their constituents concerns. Alexis de Tocqueville summed up the role of representation best:"The electors see their role of representative not only as a legislator for the state, but also as the natural protector of local interests in the legislature." We can only hope that our elected officials do not abuse the power that has been bestowed upon them.

To Be or Not To Be...(A Strong Unitary Executive)

http://www.funnyjunk.com/showcomment/12453214/

Teddy Roosevelt and Taft agreed on a great many things as friends, however, when it comes to the office of the presidency, more specifically the power indebted to the presidency, they stand on opposite spectrums.

Theodore Roosevelt strictly believed that in the “stewardship” theory of presidential power. In short, Teddy believed that the president could do anything that the Constitution or the laws of the United States did not forbid. According to Roosevelt, it is “not only his [the president’s] right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws” (Nelson 128).

On the other hand, William Howard Taft stood opposing Teddy’s viewpoint. In short, Taft believed that the president could not do anything that the Constitution or law did not permit. In Taft’s theory of presidential power, he states the “President can exercise no power which cannot fairly and reasonably be traced to some specific grant of power…as proper and necessary to its exercise” (Nelson 130). He goes even further to describe the extent of the presidential jurisdiction stating that it “must be justified and vindicated by affirmative constitutional or statutory provision, or it does not exist” (Nelson 131).

There are strengths and weaknesses to both Teddy’s and Taft’s arguments. The strengths of a strong executive would allow for a quick response in the event of a national emergency. The president would be able to take whatever precautions necessary to ensure the safety of the nation. While the weakness easily associated with a strong executive would be that Roosevelt’s view of executive power is so broad that it would be difficult for any other branch of government to limit presidential authority. As for Taft’s argument, the strength would be the inverse of Roosevelt’s; the position of the president would not step outside of his boundaries and would be easy to limit. On the other hand, the weakness would be that it would take much longer to respond to a national crisis. Summarily, a strong executive is efficient and has the ability to get things done at the sacrifice of long-term stability, the strength of a weak executive.

My personal stance is a hybrid model of both Theodore Roosevelt’s and William Taft’s theories of presidential powers. In my opinion, there are times where a president must step outside of what is outlined in the laws and the Constitution to ensure the safety and security of our country. Two historical examples of this would be the writs of habeas corpus in 1862 under President Lincoln and under President G.W. Bush in 2006. Both presidents acted outside of the extent of the stated power of the president (some would argue even against the outside the power of the Constitution) because they felt that not doing so could pose a threat to national security.¹ Another example where the president would perform well, would be after the events of September 11, 2001, or any national crisis. Conversely, as Lord Acton famously said: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Taft, in his theories of presidential power, says that the “view of Garfield and Roosevelt, ascribing an undefined residuum of power to the president is an unsafe doctrine…”(Nelson 132). One of the more controversial topic covered by political scientists is the executive order and signing statement. In Bush’s signing statement for the Defense Supplemental Appropriations Act (2005) provided that Title X of the law was inconsistent with the president’s role of commander-in-chief, and essentially told the executive branch that this should not be enforced. The signing statement is an example of how presidential power (line-item veto) can be construed as an abuse of presidential power. This would be ruled unconstitutional in 2008 and be an example of how a president can abuse power and get in trouble.

I believe that the effectiveness of this theory is dependent upon the characteristics of the individual. Presidents like JFK and Obama were seen as very charismatic individuals and when their approval ratings were high, the more power they had. However when they lost favorability, their ability to use power in a broader scope became slim. Summarily, if presidents are looked upon favorably by their constituents and the public, the broader in scope they will be able to use their power. This is exemplified throughout the “honeymoon” period of their presidency. On the other hand, presidential power is scrutinized more narrowly in scope when presidents are either looked upon unfavorably or are on the way out of office.

¹http://www.hallnj.org/index.php/topics/40-the-world-beyond-new-jersey/530-new-jersey-and-the-nation-lincoln-bush-and-the-war-powers