War and the American Presidency

Schlesinger's War and the American Presidency offers great insight into American foreign policy and its implications on presidential power. Specifically, it looks deep into Bush's administration and the public's perception and dissent of Bush foreign policy. He claims that Bush is fighting wars solely to prevent future wars and attacks. Furthermore, he claims that giving the president all this power during extreme circumstances and during wartime is creating a presidential office with too much power. He calls this the imperial presidency and explains that since there is a precedent set during wartime to abuse these powers it is becoming more and more common for the presidential office to abuse these powers during times of peace. I agree with Schlesinger's argument, because by allowing the president to expand and abuse his Constitutional powers during wartime we are unknowingly setting a precedent for him to do the same without a declaration of war.

The presidential office always uses past administrations to model their own policy. In Bush's case, when he suspended habeas corpus, he was able to reference Lincoln and his suspension of habeas corpus. The reasoning sounds better when you are able to show that it worked in the past from one of the country's most well-known presidents. However, they were two different situations and Lincoln's suspension was more justified. During the Civil War, the fight was on American soil and suspending habeas corpus was a much needed measure to ensure national security. However, Bush's War on Terrorism is not being fought in America and suspending habeas corpus wouldn't achieve as much for national security. This example reveals that presidents look for a precedent to justify their abuses of power. So, a president abusing a power once during wartime, you are setting up future presidents to abuse the same power.

If we look at Obama's presidency, he is continuing the abuses that Bush started. In Obama's case, he has faced little scrutiny even though he took Bush's abuse a step further. Bush suspended habeas corpus, but Obama went even further by ordering assassinations of US citizens and not giving them their right to due process. However, there hasn't been as much interest in this abuse of power compared to Bush. In my opinion, the lack of attention is because their was already a precedent set by Bush. There was a smooth transition of this policy from the Bush to Obama administration. So, it was easy for the Obama administration to continue the abuse of the Bush admin. How long is this abuse going to last? Because the longer it last and if it continues to be used by future presidents, then it will become a part of the American presidency. It will become one of the assumed powers of the president. By giving the president the leeway to abuse these powers we are setting up future presidents to do the same. It will become common for the president to suspend habeas corpus and that will not be good for American citizens.

So, Schlesinger is bringing up a good point. We need to look at these abuses of power and limit them. We need to set a precedent of not allowing the presidential administration to abuse their powers during wartime. Because these powers start to leak over past the actual wartime and become more common and more acceptable. This is dangerous. Even though we don't notice the long-term implications when the president abuses his power, we need to start thinking about it. This brings up one of Cato's main fears from Cato's Letters. He argues that if we give the president all this power, then a president who has the ambition to be tyrannical can assume that position. We are handing over too much power to the president and this will come back to haunt us when these abuses become a more common aspect of the presidency.