Thoughts on the (so-called?) Imperial Presidency

            So what is all this talk of the imperial presidency?  Haven’t heard about it?  I have recently, becoming familiar with a concept established in the 1960s.  The argument goes that since WWII the President of the United States has been growing more and more powerful: more staff on hand, more ability to control the path of government, more ability to act out when it comes to starting wars.  Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote the book and Andrew Bacevich brought me up to speed on the idea. 

            Hopefully avoiding spuriousness, there has been a rise in government spending – controlling for inflation of course – that has been concomitant with the ascendancy of our purported imperial president.  So with the rise in prez-power there is also a rise in folks that need the government around to stay employed.  To play ball, the prez must address the needs of this powerful and close-to-home bloc.  I would say that, although there is more power/agency in the hands of one man + coterie, the prez effectively is like a mascot for the government.

            A figurehead?  Surely one man cannot be the source of all conservative pundits’ ire?  The relationship of the president to the other gov’t branches and the relationship of all of these to the press and the American populace are complex, inchoate.  But what a good job the president does in taking flak for bad policies and whatever else people lay at his feet.  If we believe that the prez has gone all imperial then we justify focusing our criticism on him.

            Some (me) believe that the prez is beholden to special interests: doesn’t this limit his power?  Turning this idea on its head, I think that protecting special interests is more of a job requirement, something that a successful candidate is capable of doing.  Let’s not separate the president from this role: being beholden is not an obstacle to action but is actually part of the job.

            In this sense, Obama is doing his job if he is successfully aiding government workers and special interests instead of the American people.  Sure he has legitimately championed some important social issues – but these prove to be relatively superficial.  Could you imagine a national dialogue that recognized the role of corporations (or the role of the American populace’s lack of knowledge/interest in the business realm’s role) in American politics?  Sadly, the first thing that comes to mind is the dwindling of Occupy’s flame.