Structural Flaw
Posted on November 13th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Earlier today, I mentioned the ideology of national security. Prof. Bacevich describes it in The Limits of Power:
The ideology of national security does not serve as an operational checklist. It imposes no specific obligations. It functions the way ideology so often does–not to divine truth or even to make sense of things, but to provide a highly elastic rationale for action. In the American context, it serves principally to legitimate the exercise of executive power. It removes constraints, conferring upon presidents and their immediate circle of advisers wide prerogatives for deciding when and how to employ that power.
——–
Postwar presidents have routinely tapped elements of this ideology as a source of authority. America’s status as a force for good in a world that pits good against evil has provided a rationale for bribing foreign officials, assassinating foreign leaders, overthrowing governments, and undertaking major military interventions. George W. Bush did not invent this practice; he merely inherited and expanded upon it.
It is with this in mind that we should consider the prospects of a reduction of executive branch powers under the Obama administration. Obama will be taking office in what is generally considered to be wartime, despite the nebulous, open-ended nature of the so-called “Long War” alongside the campaign in Iraq, so the temptation to justify any number of usurpations in the name of national security will be great. Obama already supported reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act and the FISA bill while in the Senate–how likely is he really to change significantly from these positions when he is in control of the executive branch? We are still experiencing the effects of the financial crisis that has resulted in vastly increased the powers of the executive, and Obama has already supported this increase in powers.
If executive power grows fastest and with the fewest checks during times of crisis, and it is in the nature of the executive to seek ever more power, executive power is bound to grow under the next administration. The only thing that would prevent expansion of executive power would be stiff resistance from Congress and the courts. The latter will be of little use until after some particularly egregious abuse has occurred and has to be rectified, and Congress will be no more able or willing to resist a President of the majority’s own party than it was able or willing to resist Mr. Bush when he invoked national security during debates on the “surge” and FISA. This will be true even if Obama follows through on his promises to change interrogation procedures and treatment of detainees.
Filed under: politics
I think you’re right that the temptation for Obama will be great, because there is very little standing in his way other than his own sense of conscience. Fortunately, he’s the kind of guy who appears to have a much great sense of conscience than either Bush or Clinton, but no man is perfect.
The problem here is that Congress, which was originally conceived of as a major check on the executive, has almost wilted into either a cheerleading squad, or at best an intellectual debate club with no real force behind it. This wasn’t always the case. In the old days, when Congress was run by ruthlessly corrupt leaders like Johnson, Rayburn, etc., the Congress had considerable spine and power. Somehow, it simply abandoned that as “too undemocratic”. But there’s something to be said for the old political machines, they at least kept people in line, even the leaders. Perhaps we could attribute the end of this to Vietnam, which so splintered politics as to make party loyalty untenable for many, and post-watergate reforms, which did away with political bosses and their machines. Obama has to find a new way to tether the executive to real popular power, because I don’t see congress being the vehicle for that. It will be interesting to see how his internet populist grass roots movement can figure into this.
[...] writes: “The only thing that would prevent expansion of executive power [in a time of crisis such as we [...]
I normally avoid political books but this Limits Of Power sounds really good.
Is Alice In Wonderland a political book? I’m reading it now (never read it as a kid) and it seems almost like the inspiration for everything Orwell wrote.
[...] to Daniel, who submits that stiff resistance from Congress and the Courts (for neither of which Mr. Larison [...]