Sunday
Jun062010
Matlin's America: The President of Everything?
Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 6:54 
Take a look at the President’s job description. “You will have executive power for four years and be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Subject to Senate approval, you will have power to make treaties, appoint ambassadors and other officers, and to grant reprieves and pardons for crimes against the state. From time to time, you will provide information to Congress about the state of the union and recommend measures as you judge necessary.”As I read the terms of Article II of the US Constitution, I have to ask, "Why is President Obama expected to solve the Louisiana oil spill, and why has he been so roundly criticised for the failure of [British oil company] BP and the regulators?"
I think there is common agreement that Congress, not the Presidency, was usually the most powerful branch of American government until the Great Depression of the 1930s. True, there were some remarkable presidents after Andrew Jackson and before Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. But can you imagine Calvin Coolidge hot-footing down to the Gulf to inspect the damage? If you could get him to say anything, likely it would have been, “Hmmf, this is for the State of Louisiana”. Actually, on reflection, I doubt Taciturn Cal would have said that much.
Franklin Roosevelt introduced the concept of presidential expansion, but I’m not sure he would have put his toe into the Louisiana waters problem unless he regarded it as a potential disaster for the American economy as a whole. Likewise Harry Truman, whose patience was tested to the ultimate in the post-war years by disputes between management and unions, would not have regarded the spill as a national issue. He would have offered help to the Governor of Louisiana and told him to get on with it. As for Dwight Eisenhower this Republican would surely have followed Truman’s example.
So when did this notion of the pro-active President, the man who can fix everything start? Where did it come from? Not from John F. Kennedy, whose record on civil rights proves he was not inclined to solve all matters. Lyndon Johnson, arguably the most socialist-minded president of them all, might have regarded the spill as his responsibility but only if he deemed the commercial existence of Big Oil in jeopardy. If it was just a local issue? I don’t think LBJ would have gotten involved.
The demands of the media since LBJ left the White House have caused Americans to think that the President should be involved at the centre of every disaster, national or not. For example, Hurricane Katrina caused untold misery in the South but, surely, it was a problem for the states concerned. Yet the Federal Emergency Management Administration and, by extension, President Bush were criticised.
In FEMA’s case the criticisms were totally justified, especially in its lack of foresight and planning. Yet, although I am no apologist for the Bush Administration, how was he meant to handle the clean-up? Yes, be appalled at his nonchalant attitude but where in his job description was the obligation to get his hands wet?
Nowadays, when a tragedy or disaster happens which sells newspapers, the media immediately raises the question: What is the President doing? The trouble is that Obama does not seem to feel strong enough to tell that media and the voters, “This is not my job.”
Reader Comments (10)
Article II also doesn't give the President authority to license and regulate radio bandwidth, yet we still have the FCC. We have other things not in the constitution, too, like NASA, the Air Force, and the WhiteHouse.gov website.
If you're going to start citing Article II to limit the President's authority, please get in line with the other state's rights folks (behind the segregationists and the anarchists). When you start hearing about sending all the filthy Mexicans home and protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage, you'll know you're in the right place ;)
I think that high level politicians in all countries like to take advantage of good things that happen in their country - and hence have to wear responsibility for bad things that they would rather not be a part of.
In my country recently, we had a young girl of 16 years sail single handed and unaided around the world. She was greeted by large enthusiastic crowds - wishing to see her and to honour her. Sure enough - there is our Prime Minister, taking time off from the onerous duties of his Office, to be one of the first to greet her and get his photo taken with her - for publication in the media.
Obama is not unlike the Australian Prime Minister - a populist - some might even call them a "media Tart". They love to be in the limelight when the news is good - but there is another side to that coin!!
Barry
[...] Matlin's America: The President of Everything? | Enduring America [...]
[...] Matlin’s America: Thе President οf Everything? | Enduring America [...]
An article about Obama and the spill from another point of view:
Obama - It's all about me - http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/obama-s-motto--it-s-all-about-me-95716719.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/obama-s-motto--it-s...
1. There's a misunderstanding about the oil leak. It is not an accident, it's an act of criminal negligence that killed 11 people and caused billions in property and livelihood damage across multiple state boundaries. That means it is the responsibility of the federal government to enforce the law. That's why you have the justice department dispatching prosecutors and civil attorneys, because this is murder and property destruction. It is not President Obama's job to scoop up tarballs by the handful, but it is his responsibility to hold the criminals accountable. Therefore, popular outcry for him to "do more" is 100% justified.
2. Katrina is the exact same situation, with criminal negligence regarding federal planning (Bush was briefed, as were state officials), as well as the known-to-be-useless levee system, leading to all manner of other crimes beyond the tragic loss of life. In international law, one of the severest crimes is aggression, because it entails not only the initial attack but all of the proceeding crimes. I see very little different in Katrina, with state and federal officials acting with such criminal negligence that it led to all of the other crimes, including the ethnic cleansing of black neighborhoods by white death squads (<--- FACT!). How was poor, powerless Bush supposed to handle the "clean up?" Well, it starts with not allowing Crimes Against Humanity to take place on American soil.
3. Article II is not the only place where the President derives his authority (Yoo be damned). We have a government of three branches, each with the constitutional ability to delegate, create, or -seize- authority for certain state functions. Those three branches are given their legitimacy by a very fluid and open democratic system, wherein not just voting and political pressure but even ignorance, apathy, or silence by the citizens is a form of -consent-.
What this means is that even though Article II doesn't give Obama the right to have a Federal Emergency Management Agency, or a space shuttle, Congress, the citizens' representatives, still create and fund those Executive programs constitutionally through law. Funding = Consent. The Supreme Court, chosen by the Executive and approved by Congress, then weighs those laws against the constitution. Given that things like the EPA, MMS, and the Post Office haven't been invalidated by the SCOTUS, that means they are constitutional.
In other words, the President has the authority to deal with the Gulf Oil Spill, and it was President Bush's responsibility for the Katrina disaster. Again, if you want to cite Article II and make claims about state's authority, please be conscious of what that argument entails, and what it means in the context of American government. State's Rights are never claimed to the benefit of those least fortunate, it's never a state's right to feed the poor. No, it's the state's right to keep black folks off public transportation, or ask hispanics for their papers, or to block the constitutional rights of the LGBT community. Or better yet, to keep that nosey federal government out of the gigantic, criminal national disaster in the gulf. State's rights arguments are never used as a GOOD thing, they are always a precursor to darkness.
OK. You brought in Coolidge - so I have a Dog in this Fight.
In his 1929 Autobiography Coolidge often contrasts what is "natural" with what is "artificial." He, of coursed, endeavored to always be "natural." However he writes: "In public life, i order to appear really natural it is sometimes necessary to be actually artificial."
Today, we govern by poll and appearance. "Silent Cal" saw it coming.
Thanks to all of you who have made many interesting points. If I don't deal with them in detail, it is because I have already expressed my views. And that is what they are, just views. I make no claim to be always right all the time. No doubt another topic in the US political arena will soon catch my eye and we will correspond again.
JM
DR John
You make a good point - (Western) people ( I was going to say "we" - but I am not sure that I am part of "the people" ) do demand a lot from their Governments and politicians today.
BUT - in life , sometimes S*** just happens and there is nobody really directly responsible. Like many things, it is always after the event that people say that somebody should have pre-thought, pre-organised, pre-legislated such that the event wouldn't/didn't happen. But only God ( if there was one!) is omniscient - we are all but mere mortals. "For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return." .... Ecclesiastes 12:7
Barry
To blame Britain or hold Britain responsible is ridiculous. BP is an international company. Some might say and Anglo American company. The oil rig was neither owned nor built by Britain. Neither was much of the equipment or expertise used actually British. The nature of such a business is essentially international. For Obama (whom I am an admirer of) to blame Britain is frankly disappointinfgly silly.