February 7, 2007
Paradoxes of the Presidency
Keith Wheelock
Professor of History at Raritan Community College, Officer Career Foreign Service, former Dun and Bradstreet Executive
Minutes of the 19th Meeting of the 65th Year
President Giordmaine gavelled to order the 19th meeting of the 65th year at 10:15 AM with about 100 members in attendance in the Friend Center. John Marks led us in singing the invocation and Marcia Bossart gifted us with sparkling, remarkably inclusive minutes of John Fleming’s flowing panegyric on the English language last week.
Tom Huntington suggested that, in the absence of university action, the Old Guard might procure and donate more practical hangers for the hall coat racks.
Henry King introduced his guest Landon Jones, Bud Lyle introduced Jeff Wallace and John Schmidt, substituting for Charles Stenard, presented a certificate of emeritus status to Charles West.
Charles Rojer then introduced his good friend, the speaker Keith Wheelock, who addressed the topic “Paradoxes of the American Presidency.” White-maned, broadly informed and appropriately opinionated, our speaker very much resembled the “wise men” whose absence in our contemporary public life he later lamented. In describing the development of the institutional presidency from its initial near-powerlessness in the Confederation, when the opposition between states and federal authority was born, he cites James Madison to define the basic paradox of his text. Madison said, “...you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Wheelock argued that the executive powers defined in the Constitution owe their strength to the expectation that George Washington would be the president, tipping his historian’s hat to the power of personality that later would be recognized as one of the elements of ‘the imperial presidency.” He gives short shrift to the presidents who followed — even to Jefferson despite his significant expansion of presidential powers — until Lincoln, the greatest of them all. It was Lincoln, he said, who set the template for “big government” and necessarily big presidency that was adopted and expanded further by the two Roosevelts, Johnson, Reagan and George W. Bush.
In attempting to define what the American public expects of its president, he quoted the nine paradoxes set forth by Cronin and Genovese, which show a desire for an empathetic, visionary, non-partisan, powerful leader whom we will nevertheless not trust to act alone. This might be the paragon paradox. He noted that Machiavelli offered leadership advice to princes that would appear offensive today but is implicit in the paradoxes of Cronin and Genovese. In fact, the founding fathers, an educated group, had read Machiavelli and knew then what Cronin and Genovese later knew, and created the interlocking structure of checks and balances at the heart of our government. But that very system, except in the case of national emergencies, usually prevents bold presidential initiatives. Much of the electorate is semi-somnolent, he implies, and has to be aroused by the huge contemporary merchandising campaigns that illustrate the paradox, “What it takes to become president may not be what is needed to govern the nation.” Although Lincoln, FDR, and Washington are consistently ranked by historians as our best presidents, the others are moving targets. Judgements have varied over time, perhaps in relation to evolving standards or because actions bore delayed fruit, as with Truman, Ford, and Reagan. Presidents’ feelings about each other seem to have mellowed with time, witness Jefferson and Adams and now Bush 41 and Clinton. Still, I liked their contemporaneous comments about each other, especially Theodore Roosevelt’s description of Wilson, “a damned Presbyterian hypocrite and a Byzantine logothete. . .” Such ire and erudition! Logothete indeed!
Wheelock pointed out that “the degree of difficulty,” the challenging circumstances of a presidency, inspires greatness, Lincoln with the Civil War, FDR with WWII, Truman with the early Cold War and Reagan with the end of the Cold War. He himself agrees with Fred Greenstein that the most important presidential characteristic is “emotional intelligence.”
Wheelock expressed his concern and uncertainty about the 21st century presidency within the tri-partite structure of our government. The legislature has been largely reactive during recent presidencies and the most recent, Republican-led house has been especially unimpressive. Like Lyndon Johnson before them, members of the executive branch in the current administration have attempted direct influence in the Congress, but unlike Johnson, they were not refused access. Despite its conservative bent in the midst of high-stakes issues, he finds the current Supreme Court to be passive, perhaps an arguable view. While the Bush 43 presidency has become, he argues, “imperial” with scant regard for the constitutional principles of checks and balances, he suggests that it may end in duck-like lameness.
Our speaker ended his talk on a discouraging but not surprising note: he laments the disregard in which the public holds its government, the electorate’s ignorance and avoidance of crucial issues, and the massing of long-term problems. Venturing neither prognosis nor solution, but stepping earnestly into the mine field of historical interpretation, he warns that the 21st century dilemma of our presidential system is the inherent weakness of the encumbant to provide bold and responsible leadership.
After several questions, we adjourned at 11:30 AM.
Respectfully submitted,
Russell Marks
Tom Huntington suggested that, in the absence of university action, the Old Guard might procure and donate more practical hangers for the hall coat racks.
Henry King introduced his guest Landon Jones, Bud Lyle introduced Jeff Wallace and John Schmidt, substituting for Charles Stenard, presented a certificate of emeritus status to Charles West.
Charles Rojer then introduced his good friend, the speaker Keith Wheelock, who addressed the topic “Paradoxes of the American Presidency.” White-maned, broadly informed and appropriately opinionated, our speaker very much resembled the “wise men” whose absence in our contemporary public life he later lamented. In describing the development of the institutional presidency from its initial near-powerlessness in the Confederation, when the opposition between states and federal authority was born, he cites James Madison to define the basic paradox of his text. Madison said, “...you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Wheelock argued that the executive powers defined in the Constitution owe their strength to the expectation that George Washington would be the president, tipping his historian’s hat to the power of personality that later would be recognized as one of the elements of ‘the imperial presidency.” He gives short shrift to the presidents who followed — even to Jefferson despite his significant expansion of presidential powers — until Lincoln, the greatest of them all. It was Lincoln, he said, who set the template for “big government” and necessarily big presidency that was adopted and expanded further by the two Roosevelts, Johnson, Reagan and George W. Bush.
In attempting to define what the American public expects of its president, he quoted the nine paradoxes set forth by Cronin and Genovese, which show a desire for an empathetic, visionary, non-partisan, powerful leader whom we will nevertheless not trust to act alone. This might be the paragon paradox. He noted that Machiavelli offered leadership advice to princes that would appear offensive today but is implicit in the paradoxes of Cronin and Genovese. In fact, the founding fathers, an educated group, had read Machiavelli and knew then what Cronin and Genovese later knew, and created the interlocking structure of checks and balances at the heart of our government. But that very system, except in the case of national emergencies, usually prevents bold presidential initiatives. Much of the electorate is semi-somnolent, he implies, and has to be aroused by the huge contemporary merchandising campaigns that illustrate the paradox, “What it takes to become president may not be what is needed to govern the nation.” Although Lincoln, FDR, and Washington are consistently ranked by historians as our best presidents, the others are moving targets. Judgements have varied over time, perhaps in relation to evolving standards or because actions bore delayed fruit, as with Truman, Ford, and Reagan. Presidents’ feelings about each other seem to have mellowed with time, witness Jefferson and Adams and now Bush 41 and Clinton. Still, I liked their contemporaneous comments about each other, especially Theodore Roosevelt’s description of Wilson, “a damned Presbyterian hypocrite and a Byzantine logothete. . .” Such ire and erudition! Logothete indeed!
Wheelock pointed out that “the degree of difficulty,” the challenging circumstances of a presidency, inspires greatness, Lincoln with the Civil War, FDR with WWII, Truman with the early Cold War and Reagan with the end of the Cold War. He himself agrees with Fred Greenstein that the most important presidential characteristic is “emotional intelligence.”
Wheelock expressed his concern and uncertainty about the 21st century presidency within the tri-partite structure of our government. The legislature has been largely reactive during recent presidencies and the most recent, Republican-led house has been especially unimpressive. Like Lyndon Johnson before them, members of the executive branch in the current administration have attempted direct influence in the Congress, but unlike Johnson, they were not refused access. Despite its conservative bent in the midst of high-stakes issues, he finds the current Supreme Court to be passive, perhaps an arguable view. While the Bush 43 presidency has become, he argues, “imperial” with scant regard for the constitutional principles of checks and balances, he suggests that it may end in duck-like lameness.
Our speaker ended his talk on a discouraging but not surprising note: he laments the disregard in which the public holds its government, the electorate’s ignorance and avoidance of crucial issues, and the massing of long-term problems. Venturing neither prognosis nor solution, but stepping earnestly into the mine field of historical interpretation, he warns that the 21st century dilemma of our presidential system is the inherent weakness of the encumbant to provide bold and responsible leadership.
After several questions, we adjourned at 11:30 AM.
Respectfully submitted,
Russell Marks