Biden expands executive branch’s power, following predecessors’ lead.
Gene Healy: The Cult of the Presidency and the Growing Power of the Executive
Gene Healy, a Cato Institute vice president and former columnist for the Washington Examiner, is the author of the thought-provoking book, The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power. Published in 2008, the book ignited a longstanding debate about the expanding powers and increasing public expectations of the presidency. This debate has only intensified since its release during the final months of George W. Bush’s administration. Subsequent presidents, including Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and now Joe Biden, have further consolidated executive power in their own unique ways.
“The Founding Fathers intended a more modest role for the president: to defend the country when attacked, to enforce the law, to uphold the Constitution — and that was about it,” wrote the Economist’s Lexington columnist upon the book’s publication. “But over time, the office has grown.”
District of Crime: The Decline of Washington’s Police Force
In a captivating email conversation with the Washington Examiner in mid-October, Healy delved into the historical growth of the presidency and its current state under Biden and Trump. The following is a lightly edited transcript of that conversation.
Washington Examiner: What is the cult of the presidency, and why did you write a book about it?
Healy: The cult of the presidency refers to the widespread American tendency to imbue the limited, constitutional office with messianic and quasi-mystical aspirations. Originally, the president’s duty was to faithfully execute the laws, a challenging task in itself. However, in modern times, the president has been burdened with immense responsibilities, from the state of the nation’s soul to the price of gas and even freedom worldwide. Our political culture has bestowed preposterously vast powers upon the office, granting a fallible human being authority that no one should possess.
Washington Examiner: Has the situation improved or worsened since you wrote the book?
Healy: Unfortunately, it seems my arguments were not persuasive enough. In the years following the book’s publication, the “most powerful office in the world” has only grown in power. George W. Bush implemented secret surveillance programs and unilaterally ordered a multibillion-dollar auto bailout despite Congress rejecting the move. Obama, despite promising to curtail the imperial presidency, engaged in undeclared wars and exceeded the limits imposed by the War Powers Resolution. Donald Trump added new weapons to the presidential arsenal, such as using national emergency declarations to bypass Congress and ordering drone strikes on government figures of non-warring nations.
Washington Examiner: But didn’t Trump’s actions diminish the presidency’s stature?
Healy: While it can be argued that Trump punctured the romanticized image of the presidency and made it difficult to view presidents as moral leaders, he did not reduce the power or danger associated with the office. Despite four years of liberal outcry about the rise of fascism, there was no sustained effort to limit the presidency’s powers and safeguard against tyranny. This missed opportunity will undoubtedly be regretted.
Washington Examiner: You recently stated that “Biden has repeatedly engaged the full powers of the presidency in an attempt to impose a forced settlement on issues where the American people are deeply divided.” Is this an example of the cult in action?
Healy: Absolutely. The modern president has become our “culture warrior in chief,” exacerbating divisions by turning every social issue into a federal matter. Take the debate over “trans rights” as an example. We do not need national rules on bathroom access determined by whichever political party holds the presidency. Yet Biden’s latest Title IX edict grants him authority over the girls’ room. He seeks to settle the debate on sex-change treatment for minors with a stroke of his pen and has appointed a federal czar to enforce Gender Queer in school libraries, even against the wishes of local districts. When presidential policy extends to everything from school library shelves to locker room usage, it becomes increasingly difficult for people to accept electoral losses gracefully. This fosters a dangerous sentiment that every election is a life-or-death situation, which is not what we should encourage. Instead, we should strive to reduce the stakes of presidential elections by limiting the potential damage any one president can inflict.
Washington Examiner: What powers did the king of England possess during the Revolutionary War that the modern president does not?
Healy: Very few. In Federalist 69, Hamilton outlined the kingly powers that the president was not meant to have. For instance, the king could create offices and agencies and act as the “arbiter of commerce” within the realm. The president does not possess such powers. The king could initiate wars, but the president cannot. While the president is the “commander in chief,” as Hamilton explained, this merely means they are the highest-ranking military officer and do not have the authority to unilaterally decide when and if the country goes to war. The king also held authority over the national church, which the president lacks.
Fast forward to the late 20th century, and presidents had unilaterally created over half of all administrative agencies in the United States, enjoyed the power to wage wars at will, and, like Joe Biden, considered themselves responsible for the nation’s soul.
Washington Examiner: Did the Constitution’s framers make a mistake by combining the head of government and head of state into one office?
Healy: It is possible. Legal scholar F.H. Buckley presents a compelling case for this view in his book, The Once and Future King. In parliamentary systems where these roles are separate, the head of government is not revered as the living symbol of the nation. They face scrutiny and questioning during “Question Time.” This distinction may explain why there is no comparable “Cult of the Prime Minister” across the pond. Perhaps we should set aside our republican pride and assign the head-of-state role to figures like the Kardashians.
Washington Examiner: Is impeachment part of the solution?
Healy: Prior to the Trump presidency, I believed that we did not impeach presidents enough. Given the numerous corrupt and inept leaders we have endured throughout constitutional history, it was disheartening that we had only made three serious attempts at removal. Even when the Senate failed to convict, as in the cases of Johnson and Clinton, impeachment served as a disciplinary measure, leaving a stain on their legacies.
However, the Trump experience has dampened my enthusiasm for impeachment’s effectiveness. Congress twice deployed this tool within two years, yet it proved futile. If a president can be impeached twice and still secure their party’s nomination, as Trump is poised to do, it is evident that mass partisanship has rendered impeachment ineffective. If we truly want to curb presidential abuse of power, we should focus on reducing the powers that are susceptible to abuse, rather than solely targeting the individual holding the office.
Click here to read more from the Washington Examiner.
How can the public and lawmakers collectively reverse the trend of expanding executive powers?
Wars without congressional approval, and exerted significant influence over the economy through regulatory measures and executive orders. In comparison, the king’s powers during the Revolutionary War seem trivial.
Washington Examiner: How can we reverse the trend of the expanding executive power?
Healy: Reversing the trend will require a collective effort from both the public and lawmakers. First and foremost, we need to recognize the dangers of an all-powerful presidency and reject the notion that one person can solve all our problems. The president should be seen as a limited, constitutional officer, not a savior or a superman. Additionally, Congress should reassert its authority and hold the executive branch accountable for any unconstitutional overreach. This means reclaiming the power of the purse and enacting stricter oversight measures.
The public also has a crucial role to play. We need to demand a return to constitutional principles and reject the cult-like worship of the presidency. Instead of looking to the executive to solve every issue, we should focus on local and state-level solutions and encourage robust dialogue and debate.
Lastly, courts need to step up and fulfill their role as guardians of the Constitution. They should be vigilant in protecting individual rights and ensure that the executive branch does not exceed its constitutional limits.
Washington Examiner: In your book, you argue that the cult of the presidency is a threat to liberty and good governance. Can you elaborate on this?
Healy: Absolutely. When power becomes concentrated in the hands of one person, it is inevitably abused. The expansion of executive power allows for the erosion of civil liberties and the infringement upon individual rights. It also undermines the system of checks and balances that is crucial for good governance. When the presidency becomes an all-powerful institution, Congress becomes weak and ineffective, and the courts are limited in their ability to provide meaningful oversight.
Furthermore, the cult of the presidency breeds a dangerous level of public expectation and adoration. This places immense pressure on the president to deliver on unrealistic promises, often leading to the disregard for constitutional limits and the pursuit of short-term political gains.
In conclusion, it is imperative that we recognize the dangers of an unchecked executive branch and work towards reining in its powers. The cult of the presidency must be dismantled, and a return to constitutional principles is needed to protect our liberties and ensure good governance.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
