This diary has been some time in coming, but it's something that I wanted to have time to ruminate on before I began to write about it. It's been a combination of events in Libya, reversals on Guantanamo, seeing the History Channel's documentary "It's Good to be President," and reading the memoirs of Henry Kissinger.
It's an interesting mix, but it's led me to some unmistakable conclusions, mainly, that America has decided it would rather have an imperial presidency on some level.
How did I come to this conclusion? Quite frankly, the lack of outcry over Obama's actions in Libya (outside of Glenn Greenwald and some pundits) was the first hint. While I continue to believe he did the right thing, boy, was there a pundit blowup, but yet, such a small public outcry. It's not necessarily publicly popular, but there isn't a huge protest wave, either, nothing even close to it.
There's a lot more, too, and it's after the jump.
What does our history say over the past 40 years? It goes to Nixon. Starting in 1973, Nixon was completely hamstrung by Congress. Congress passed bill after bill after bill restricting all number of things he could do as commander-in-chief, finally wrapping up with the War Powers Resolution. It is likely Nixon only abided by this only because he was so weakened by Watergate that he had no choice (in fact, Kissinger alludes to this several times in his second volume of memoirs, saying Nixon yielded to force majeure). After Nixon resigned in 1974, the rest of Ford's presidency saw a continued weakening of the executive, including Ford's appearance as the only president in history to testify before Congress regarding Nixon's pardon. Furthermore, Congress continued to restrict any CIA or military operations of virtually any sort, as this took place in the shadow of the Church and Pike Committee reports.
When Jimmy Carter became president, it was on the premise that he would conduct a transparent presidency. While he did to many extents, he tried to hide certain embarrassing things himself, he stood by Bert Lance when Lance didn't deserve it, and when the Iranians took our embassy hostage, the situation cried out for a strong response, but he muddled it, all of it, not fighting the Congressional restraints, but trying to live within in them. He didn't even fight to have Congress take the leash off. These decisions led to his trouncing at the hands of Reagan in 1980, that it was because of the hostages and the lack of American strength that voters rebelled.
In his first term, Reagan royally pissed off the Soviets, had the Lebanon mission go poorly, invaded Grenada, and had unemployment bounce up and down. Yet, in 1984, Reagan even more thoroughly trounced Mondale in the biggest landslide in history. I'll never forget what Geraldine Ferraro said in a documentary I watched years ago, when she visited laid-off steelworkers in Pittsburgh during the campaign, and she asked them how they felt, and they said they were voting for Reagan. She asked them why would you vote for a guy when you've all lost work under him. The reply? "He makes us feel strong. He makes AMERICA feel strong."
So, there's the rub. There it is, right there, in black and white. "He makes us feel strong." It's why Bush Sr. was so strong after the Persian Gulf War, why most top-name Democrats bowed out of running, opening the door for Bill Clinton. It's why Dubya was so popular between 9/11 and the early days of Iraq. More importantly, it's why Americans generally don't challenge the president now on these matters. It's why politicians always say America is the greatest and the strongest. It's why naked America-loving always polls so well. Americans want to feel strong inside, and will vote against their best interests sometimes in search of that strength. Moreover, they'd rather have us take a stance that isn't necessarily right just to show somehow that we're "strong."
The pendulum swung so far to Congress in the 1970s, then started swinging back the other way during the 80s, part due to Reagan and part to Congress' own scandals, which hurt its standing in the eyes of Americans. In the 90s, Congress got back the whip hand in reply to Clinton, but then they overplayed it with the impeachment, leading to 2000, the ultimate stalemate. However, as Republicans took control of everything in 2002, a curious thing happened. Congress ceded its hand in the game. They gave Bush free reign, and Congress, even when Democrats took it back, played by the new rules. They didn't push Bush's people hard enough, and as a matter of speaking, public attention moved on. We still cared here, but the general public moved on to other things, and then the economy collapsed.
Today, the new rules still apply. Pundits complain, some congresspeople inveighed against it, but let's face it. Obama's decisions in Afghanistan and Libya haven't faced public outcry, and I think it's because people would rather have us be strong than be right, or be strong instead of letting someone else (i.e. France) take the lead.
Anyways, now that I've spent hours trying to find the right words for this, I hope a good discussion ensues. I'd be glad to hear alternate theories or explanations.