I thought that Aberbach's lecture on Nixon's Administrative strategy was really interesting. I though it was very surprising how much Nixon had changed: he had started by letting his secretaries make their own appointments, and then in his second term tried to root out all that opposed him, even several levels down in the bureaucracy, by coercion.
What caused this shift in Nixon's policy? Should the president really be able to run the entire bureaucracy, as it is in his branch of government?
On a side note, Aberbach also talked about signing statements, where presidents will sign laws and then not enforce them, or not enforce parts of them. I think this is completely ridiculous, because it is a way to have an unlawful line-item veto. The constitution gave congress the power to write laws for a reason. Do you think that presidents should hold such a large amount of power in this sense?
Well I thought his shift was really interesting as well. It seemed as though at first he wanted everyone picking their own subordinates, but soon realized those selected did not have an alliance with Nixon. The people chosen were not Nixon's puppets, but rather did their own thing, and had no obligation to Nixon. I think after Nixon realized his power was decreasing he wanted to secure his power. So, he decided to fill the government with dependent people who would act more like the "puppets" he wanted.
ReplyDeleteI think, while maybe this was a creative strategy, it seemed to me like a dictatorship in the works.
“Should the president be able to run the entire bureaucracy?” seems almost an absurd question when we think about the founding principles this nation was built upon—the three branch system, checks and balances, division of power—all things set up to guard against tyranny. In reality, however, many US presidents have done just that, taken near complete control over the bureaucracy. The fact is that while fundamentally in opposition to the basic principles of the United States, this presidential take over can sometimes be helpful, necessary even. Think Teddy Roosevelt’s progressive era reforms—he could not have guided the country out of the Great Depression and into an era of prosperity without a legally-questionable increase in presidential control over the bureaucracy. Roosevelt’s control over the legislative enactment process was justified however, because it represented in a sense, a popular control over the bureaucracy—alphabet soup programs were enacted largely, for the benefit of the people as a whole. Nixon’s abuse of presidential power however, only benefited a small wealthy sector of the population, and thus was not within reason. A president should only be granted a large amount of power if he has the people’s best interest at heart—if not, what is this usurpation of control if not a form of tyranny?
ReplyDeleteMaybe what caused this great shift in Nixon was due just to the stress of being a wartime president. He inherited the mistakes of the Presidents before him. I am not trying to justify his actions because he obviously did go overboard, but i just thought that could be one of the reasons. His strong personality coupled with that stress might have been a factor. I don't think the president or any other single branch of government should hold that much power because then it becomes a dictatorship instead of a democracy.
ReplyDeleteBy: Holly Di Maggio
ReplyDeleteI think Nixon strategically planned the way he ran the presidency the first term. His goal was to be well like from the people surrounding him in the white house. By allowing those who rank lower then him to make their own decisions, he gained more trust among his subordinates. After creating this relationship, in his second term, Nixon realized that changes needed to be made if he wanted to run the country and take action as HE wanted.
I do not think (just as everyone else) that the president should be able to run the entire bureaucracy. The checks and balances under our constitution make it difficult for this to happen, yet there are always loop holes. However, the president is our elected leader and is suppose to represent the people. Every action Nixon made, although not always constitutional, had good intentions.
I too feel that the reason behind Nixon’s dogged work to weed out “his enemies” in his second term was chiefly his paranoia. Taking into account his clandestine personality and his responsibilities as a wartime president as mentioned in this thread earlier, Nixon’s actions should not be concluded utterly villainous, also considering how awfully he was driven by the attainment of power. As discussed in the “Evaluating Nixon and Presidents” thread, I also feel Nixon’s misconducts disproportionately shadowed his successes as an international leader, and my perspective on Nixon (whom I only connected with the Watergate scandal before) improved similar to how my perspective on George Wallace ameliorated.
ReplyDelete