Obama the dictator?
The use and abuse of executive power
On Friday The New York Times reported that the Obama Administration, faced with an uncooperative Congress, is looking into “a list of presidential executive orders and directives” to push its governing agenda forward. The article was, unsurprisingly, met with a barrage of criticism from the right. RedState writers suggested Obama was “dusting off his best Hugo Chavez imitation” and that his Administration had become a “DICTATORSHIP BY FIAT” (emphasis in original).
As The New York Times article notes, presidents can legally make policy without Congressional legislation “through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat.” But just because a president can doesn’t mean a president should. So should Obama use his executive powers, like executive orders and directives?
Let’s look at a number of factors you might consider in making such an assessment.
Those who believe Obama should employ his executive powers, will likely do so on the basis of one of two normative arguments. Most common, will be the argument that the President was elected democratically in a political system in which executive powers are legal and generally accepted. One may have qualms with the use of these powers, but it would be difficult to argue that the 2008 election took place without the expectation that the winner would be able to use executive powers within the boundaries of the law. Furthermore, the use of executive powers by presidents has robust precedent, including by Obama’s immediate predecessor, George W. Bush.
One could also advocate a pro-executive power case on the basis of the outcome-based approach to public philosophy that we’ve discussed here many times. This “morality as outcome” approach is based on the idea that morality governs the achievement of ends, not the pursuit of them. According to this argument, which would be made in this case only by those that agree with the ends the Administration is pursuing, Obama should do whatever is necessary (possibly bounded by the law, depending how extreme you are in the outcome-based approach) to realize his policies. Since it is ends that matter, not means, we should morally judge the President only on what he achieves, not how he achieves it.
Interestingly, this “outcome” approach could also be used by those who disagree with the policies of the Obama Administration to argue against the use of executive powers. Just as “outcome liberals” might say that Obama should use any means to pursue his policies, “outcome conservatives” might argue that Obama should be prevented from using any means, even those that are legal, to pursue his policies. The logic is the same as the argument above — ends matter, not means — the only difference is the particular ends that those making this case support.
Two other arguments can be used to oppose the President’s use of executive powers. The first is that Obama ran on the promise of a new politics, one that would be more open and more democratic. During the campaign, Obama was critical of President Bush’s excessive use of “signing statements” to nullify parts of legislation and his expansive assertions of executive authority particularly in the realm of national security. Therefore, there was an expectation that the Obama Administration would shun the use of executive powers to push policy. Citizens who voted for Obama may have voted at least in part with this expectation. And this may create at least some responsibility on the part of the President to honor the pledges made during their campaigns. Of course, this argument could also be used to justify the use of executive powers since Obama did make a large number of substantive policy promises that may only be achievable through executive order. But the case is probably stronger for holding to pledges made regarding his own conduct, over those related to policy outcomes.
Finally, one could argue against Obama’s use of executive powers simply because it is not very democratic. The fact that it is currently legal and has significant precedent does not me that it should be so. Sure, we elect the President in democratic elections; but not to a four-year term as dictator. Legislating power is assigned to Congress and not the President for a reason: because of its numbers, diversity (geographic, gender, race, religion, etc) and, in the case of the House, frequent elections, Congress is more in tune with and accountable to the people than the President ever can be. Yes, there are downsides to this, particularly in the realm of good policy making, but that is just the cost of a robust democracy.
Where you fall on Obama’s use of executive powers will depend on which of these arguments you find most compelling. So where do you fall? Am I missing any other arguments for or against the use of executive powers?
-Marc
Photo by Flickr user marcn used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Related posts:
- Obama & international relations
- Assessing Obama
- Does symbolism matter in the pursuit of justice?
- President Obama and The New York Times must read this blog
- Compromise
ShareComments
One Response to “Obama the dictator?”
Leave a Reply
[...] and his super-majority in the Senate eliminated by the voters of Massachusetts, President Obama has turned to arguably less democratic tools to push his policy proposals. And liberals as a whole, The Weekly Standard claims, “have [...]