EL PRESIDENTE?

Recently, we have been “warned.” President Obama has told us: “I've got a pen and I've got a phone.” That is, if Congress, because of its inability to act, can't address the pressing issues before us, then he will act through executive orders. The cry from the opposition party is that the President is acting in dictatorial fashion and his actions will be illegitimate and unconstitutional. Is this right? Whether it is or not is a matter of reviewing each of his actions and analyzing it – not my purpose here. My purpose is to add some context to this whole question and establish some ground rules as to the notion of an imperial presidency.

My first introduction to this term, at least as it was being applied to contemporary conditions, was its use in describing the presidency of Richard Nixon. Symbolically, the concern was illustrated when he ordered the uniforms of the White House guards changed to resemble, to some, nineteenth century imperial uniforms and, to others, marching band uniforms. The get-ups were described as “palace guard” uniforms. Apparently, Nixon was inspired by uniforms he saw in Europe. But the move fed the general impression, mostly fostered by his opposition, that this sartorial move simply reflected the President's desire to institute an imperial presidency. The newer uniforms didn't last very long. As for my awareness, I probably already had been introduced to the concept of a strong presidency in my political science classes.

In the political science literature, there was – probably still is – a strong bit of reporting and explaining about the difference between what is called the “strong presidency” theory and the “weak presidency” theory. Weak presidency refers to the view that holds that our Constitution created the presidency to be of very limited powers. In effect, the powers of the office solely derive from his/her duty to carry out the wishes of Congress. The president, under this theory, simply awaits what Congress wishes, in the forms of the laws it passes, and merely carries out those wishes in a fashion that is as true to the intentions of lawmakers as possible. The use of the veto by the executive – the ability of the executive to say no to a particular bill – should be reserved for only the most extreme cases in which the Congress has passed an obviously unconstitutional bill or in which the bill would cause untold damage to the nation or to the security of the nation, especially in terms of foreign relations. This view of the presidency was very much in line with traditional federalist thinking and, as I have pointed out, in vogue long into the history of the republic. If that be the case, then one would expect the use of the veto to have been very limited during the years in which the traditional federalist view was dominant. From the presidency of Washington through that of Chester Arthur (1789-1885), there were 206 vetoes – including regular vetoes and pocket vetoes. Ninety-three of them were issued by only one president, Ulysses S. Grant. I cut it off after Arthur because the next president, Grover Cleveland, issued 584 vetoes. One needs to remember that Cleveland is the only president to have served two non-consecutive terms – he won one election, lost one, and then won one. In his first term, he issued 414. What is interesting about this turn, from Arthur to Cleveland, is that since then we have had a significantly higher frequency of vetoes by the executive branch. The all time record holder is Franklin D. Roosevelt with a total of 635. Then again, FDR served quite a bit longer than any other president, but ironically was graced with a Congress controlled by his own party. In any case, I believe the numbers support the general notion that early in our national history, our bias toward the presidency was to see the office as subordinate to Congress. Slowly, but unrelentingly, our acceptance and then our expectations for an active president grew and with that we had a change of heart. Consequently, the institution of the presidency has become the dominant branch. This shift began, ever so modestly, with the dramatic administration of Andrew Jackson (he issued 12 vetoes; significantly more than all six previous presidencies which totaled 9 vetoes). In contemporary times, since the Truman administration, the average number of vetoes per presidency is 66 1/4 vetoes. The highest numbers were recorded during the Truman (250 in eight years), Eisenhower (181 in eight years), and Reagan (78 in eight years) administrations. Of note, the Ford administration issued 66 in roughly two years and five months. In our current Obama administration, there have been, in five years, TWO. Perhaps the current president wants to reintroduce the weak presidency theory?

Of course, opposing the weak presidency theory is the strong presidency theory. Here, the idea is for the president to challenge Congress in order to implement the president's agenda and where Congress does not act, to take the initiative and act. The first annunciation of this theory was given to us by Andrew Jackson. He not only challenged Congress; he also challenged the Supreme Court by refusing to refrain from a policy the Court had ruled unconstitutional¹ – a challenging strategy against the Court not followed by any succeeding president with the exception of FDR with his “court packing” scheme. In terms of relations with Congress, the question is: what are the initiating powers of the president to develop and carry out policy not authorized by Congress? For example, Theodore Roosevelt wanted to spend monies already allocated to send a fleet of our navy ships, the White Fleet, around the world – a showing-off gesture to promote our military prowess. Some said Congress had not authorized the expenditure. TR simply responded to the critique: “try and get it back,” referring to the money. Instead of a subservient role, the strong presidency theory calls for a cooperative relation between Congress and the president in determining what national policy will be. Sometimes, that cooperation reflects a coordination, and sometimes it is better characterized as a competition for power and influence. It is this sense of competition, many argue, that is more closely in line with the intention of the Constitution. It reflects the Madisonian ideal of having the branches of government compete so that excessive power would not fall on any one of them – “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

As for the charge of whether the Obama administration is trying to reintroduce a weak presidency, not so, say his critics. I was watching a C-SPAN broadcast the other day of a Congressional hearing in which constitutional scholars were invited to testify as to whether the Obama administration was usurping too much power. With only two vetoes, the focus was not on stopping legislation, but on the President and his administration's execution of the laws. The charge is that through the actions of the President and his interpretations of the law, he is not executing the law as written. By behaving in this way, the President does not have the legitimate power to do what he is doing. An often cited example is his administering the Affordable Care Act in which he has delayed the implementation of certain mandates written into the law. I will not pretend to know enough about the law to determine whether he is guilty of using unsupportable power to delay those mandates, but there are certain guidelines by which to determine if that is the case.

Fortunately or unfortunately, laws at any level – national, state, or local – usually cannot be written with such specificity so as to spell out exactly how the law will be administered in its execution. Also, laws don't always come to the executive fully funded. That is, for every law that authorizes something to be done, such as the ACA, there needs to be an accompanying, but separate, law that appropriates the funds from the Treasury to pay for it. Often, that amount is not equal to the task. Hence, this usually gives the administration power in determining what parts of the laws to implement. This is the case unless the law specifically identifies a priority in spending choices. When the President states that he has a phone and a pen to carry out executive orders, in order to be legal, the authority to do so comes from the lack of specificity in the law or from a lack of funding provisions. Oh yes; there are times when the law specifically calls on the executive to determine the actual method by which the law goes into effect.

Take the issue of whether the administration will enforce anti-marijuana laws in Colorado where the recreational use of it has become legal under state law, but not federal law. The Obama administration has announced that it will not enforce those federal laws; that is, it will not spend its limited funds on policing statewide law breaking. Now, unlike a law, such executive decisions are easily reversed by subsequent administrations by the equally simple use of a pen and phone by a new president. Any executive action, which is a product of a law's lack of specificity or lack of funding, is in force only during the life of that administration, assuming the President doesn't change his/her mind and get rid of the order him/herself. The moment a newer administration decides to rescind it, it is no longer in effect.

Therefore, as a tool in implementing an “imperial” presidency or a “dictatorship,” executive action is a relatively weak one. The veto is much more effective and this president has been quite weak in its use.

Note: My use of the term, el presidente, is not meant as a slur of the Latino/a culture – heck; I'm a Latino. I just think it sounds more imperial, doesn't it?

1This had to do with the removal of the Cherokee – native American tribe – from the East to territories out West.

I DO, DO I?

I have in this blog referred to marriage as the fundamental federalist union. Here, two adults choose to form a union under the auspices of a covenant or compact. They promise to be by each other's side come hell or high water. And this includes all sorts of situations no matter what either one does. At least, that is the model. We, through the years, have compromised this ideal. I have to admit that the realities characterizing too many actual marriages fall far short of the ideal. Many of our popular dramas we love to watch are about how spouses, most often the husband, cheat on their partners in one way or another. Be that as it may, the importance of the family and the marriage upon which this institution is based need to be examined. It is a subject our youngsters in school should explore, because the role that marriages play in promoting a healthy society cannot be overestimated.

Yet our institution of the family is lacking sufficient success – current rates of divorce have leveled off at 45% since 1980. Consequently, we are under the burden of social effects that are detrimentally keeping us from accomplishing significant goals. Such as what? Such as a society with low crime rates, with an educated populace, with a labor force that can readily meet the demands of our modern economy, with a people who are able to seek and attain those personal ambitions they set for themselves. The simple truth is that marriages not only serve the spouses involved, but also set the stage for the creation of the next generation with all of its promise for the future.

So a central question in analyzing this institution would be: why would people want to get married? Why would they want to set up their lives, committed in the most intimate ways, with one other person? What are they looking for when they say, “I do”? And in this, as it turns out, there has been a significant amount of research, mostly by sociologists.

Eli J. Finkel¹ provides a bit of an overview of recent findings one can find in this academic literature. He approaches this complex concern from the perspective of two domains: economic and psychological. One is the varying economic demands that people faced through the years of our nation's existence – how the particular set of demands of any era shape the expectations of prospective couples. The other domain is the psychological developmental stages that people go through as they have or don't have their perceived needs met.

As for economic demands, Finkel identifies three broad models he sees characterizing how Americans have viewed marriage over the nation's history: the institutional marriage (up to about 1850), the “companionate” marriage (1850-1965), and the self-expressive marriage (1965 to the present). Basically, as Americans were able to more readily meet the economic necessities facing them, this in turn helped Americans meet their needs. As they became more proficient economically, their motivational expectations developed into different psychological views as to what constitutes a workable marriage – a marriage that provides satisfaction of the expectations one has for getting married in the first place.

In general, there is a development among populations that progresses from the oldest, more austere times to the more prosperous times of today. And it happens that a respected psychological model on motivation helps us understand this development. That model is Abraham Maslow's “hierarchy of needs.” The model postulates that as one is able to satisfy a set of lower needs, one is confronted by a higher set of needs. The general trend is from the lowest level – survival needs (mostly biological needs for food, shelter, safety, and touch) – to mid-range needs – social needs of comradeship and love – to finally the highest level needs – personally directed needs of esteem and self-actualization. It's not that we lose our lower needs as we ascend this hierarchy; we continue to seek food and shelter, but our conscious emphasis falls on the higher and in many ways more complex needs.

Using these domains, Finkel identifies the three eras I listed above, each with its own view of what marriage should provide spouses. Let us review the implications of all this by explaining each marital model. The institutional marriage model was in vogue when the primary economic needs of Americans were to provide food and shelter. Sure enough, marriage decisions in the earliest years – pre-1850 – centered around concerns over providing the lowest level needs of food, shelter, and protection against violence. These were the primary considerations in determining whether one was to marry or not and to whom. Love? In an institutional marriage, one could hope for it, but the emphasis was on the more immediate survival considerations that were central to most people during those years.

With a more secure and prosperous economy, one could allow oneself to be more concerned with loving someone and with being loved. With basic needs for the most part met, in a “companionate” marriage, one can begin to look for and focus on companionship that reflects emotional attachment to one's perspective spouse. At the same time, men, especially, found employment outside the homestead – a movement from rural employment to urban labor. The sexes, in vast numbers, began to live in distinct social environments: the home versus a factory, mine, business shop, or office. The expectation became that love would keep these mates together, as opposed to those mutual concerns over making a farm a success.

In our last era, the self-expressive marriage model became prominent at least in people's minds. Since 1965, people have lived in significantly richer times. For those who have benefited from this largess, people have reasons to formulate a new set of psychological expectations. The cultural media outlets tend to promote these types of expectations since they are more likely to describe and focus on people from upper income households. And so, a different marriage model becomes prevalent: the self-expressive marriage. This has taken hold among most people since 1965. Under this model, the new emphasis becomes one's own individual needs: esteem and self-actualization, Maslow's highest levels. Marriage mates, who are now safely ensconced in lucrative careers, are not so dependent on companionship, but instead are apt to look for that person who will help or at least allow one to bolster one's self importance and/or one's self-meaning. But a word of caution concerning this view: I can't help but describe this as an outlook that encourages a more narcissistic view. If one does not define self-importance as being determined by service to others, the outlook is one of selfishness and, by definition, not one that bolsters the sacrifices that living with someone else demands – hence a 45% divorce rate. This is especially true if both partners see marriage with the same set of self-centered expectations. Unfortunately, in an age when the dominant social and political construct is the natural rights perspective, the likelihood that either or both spouses will see marriage as a means to advance a more self-serving agenda is much more likely.

Given the importance of the family and the relationship it has with the institution of marriage, there is a need to address all of these concerns in civics classes. Marriages have a crucial role in securing a healthy dose of social capital in our or any society. To quote a previous posting:

The problem of incivility [a central concern of civics education] can be defined as a lack of social capital. The social scientist [Robert D.] Putnam … defines social capital as a societal quality characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.²

If upon looking around today, you sense we have too few of these listed qualities, perhaps one of the reasons has to do with marital expectations that encourage selfish behavior that is non-conducive to healthy family relations.

Finkel reinforces the notion that we have higher divorce rates, especially among the lower income population (as reflected by lower educational attainment levels). He argues that lack of income makes self-expressing expectations more or less unaffordable. These types of findings lead Finkel to postulate that while divorce rates are high, those who can meet the expectations of current societal conditions tend to find themselves in very rewarding and self-enhancing unions. My take is that there are qualitative issues that these marriages must address, irrespective of their educational or income levels, and federalist thought might guide us toward looking at what those are. Does the marriage encourage healthy perspectives that frame the relationship in accordance with those qualities that advance social capital in whatever minimal amount that relationship can contribute? Does it, for example, promote trust between the spouses and between the couple and their social environment? Or does it encourage a self-serving posture that invites anti-social relations between them and/or among their social relations? All these are factors that contribute to the happiness a particular marriage enjoys and can determine its ability to not only survive but also be fulfilling.

As for couples that cannot literally afford higher expectations, whether in terms of finances, time, or energy (self-actualizing relations do take significant amounts of effort), Finkel suggests: “they might consider adjusting their expectations, perhaps by focusing on cultivating an affectionate bond [mid-range Maslow needs] without trying to facilitate each other's self-actualization.”³ For whatever level a particular person finds him/herself in, an understanding of the psychological forces that are in effect would, I believe, increase the chances for that person's eventual marriage to work. We all have a vested interest in upping the probabilities of successful marriages. These probabilities can be affected by what we address in school, particularly in civics classes.

1Finkel, E. J. (2014). The all-or-nothing marriage. The New York Times, February 16, Sunday Review section, pp. 1 and 6. The reported factual information in this posting is derived from this article.

2See posting More Formal Evidence of Incivility, November 1, 2010.

3Op cit., Finkel, p. 6.