Bush's Strong Man Theory of the Presidency

Something Australians don't talk about nearly as much as Americans is the scope for each newly elected government to reinterpret its own powers. It's a 'Who will police the police?' problem.

If history has taught us anything it's that the more decentralised power is the less likely it is to be abused or corrupted: 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. So we separate the judicial system (the courts) from the legislative system (parliament) so that the people have someone to turn to if one or the other over-reach their powers. In the American system they also have an executive branch (the president) who is like the CEO to the board of directors in a corporation, in theory he executes the decisions made by the legislative branch (Congress in the US case). This whole concept is called 'the separation of powers' and is supposed to be sacrosanct, meaning if anyone violates that separation it's expected that all good hearted people will react, regardless of their politics, to have that person run out of town on a rail. Needless to say that bit is where it starts to get idealistic.

As in Australia we've seen a historic shift of power from the states to the Federal government (heavily promoted by the Hawke government); in America there's been a historic centralisation of power in the executive branch. Most disturbingly it is usually the case that a president will simply reinterpret his powers such that more powers are centered on him than before and Congress, particularly when his party is in a majority, will quietly go along with it.

And this has been the biggest issue with George W. Bush. In a parallel to fundamentalism's naive methodology for doing theology, Bush-ist politics takes all the dynamics and nuance out of a democracy of separated powers in favour of a government in the style of a Latin American strong man, e.g. Pinochet. In this vision Congress advises the President of what the people might want, and the judiciary really only exists to prosecute criminals and has no relevance to politics, while everyone is loyal to the all-powerful President. After all, if they weren't going to be loyal to everything he did they wouldn't have elected him.

To give a specific example there has been a recent kerfufel over torture in the US. After the executive came out with a few fairly creative reinterpretations of the laws regarding torture - that those laws don't apply to Americans working over seas (like the CIA), or that the President could over-ride laws against torture if he liked (for national security reasons of course) - Congress reacted. John McCain, the rebel Republican senator, put up a bill clarifying previous laws against torture to the effect that it wasn't permissible for an American to torture anyone anywhere.

Vice President Cheney strongly opposed this bill with all kinds of crazy reasoning which basically amounted to an admission that the CIA tortures people all the time. Bush threatened to veto the bill. But McCain got the numbers - overwhelmingly in fact - such that a veto would've been over-ridden and Bush was forced to sign it into law.

However, now the Boston Globe reports that Bush attached a 'signing statement' providing his interpretation of the law he was signing. This statement basically said in an obtuse way that being the President and Commander-in-Chief he could still over-ride this law whenever he liked (for national security reasons of course). This is a slap in the face to a majority of Congress and a disturbing attitude to power from the highest office in the land, but it's worse than that.

A key policy of Cheney's and something Bush has taken on board is that the executive branch (Bush himself) should be strong and independent (for national security reasons of course). One related outcome has been that Bush openly admitted to authorising violations of a law banning domestic
phone-taps of American citizens without a court order. There was a special, secret court set up with the special purpose of quickly and quietly reviewing cases to provide court orders when needed for urgent investigations of terrorist activity but Bush decided this wasn't enough, it would be on his say so alone that taps would be authorized. And he could decide that because he was the President and the President can do any damn thing he likes. Now he's openly taken the same approach to torture.

The practical applications are disturbing enough but the political theory behind it is a complete renunciation of the separate but equal powers. In Bush's world the separate but equal powers are the judicial and legislative branches of government who do a fine job of being checks and balances for each other, but the executive branch - Bush himself - sits above them and is not checked or balanced by either of them in any way shape or form. To put it in other words Bush has made a point blank declaration that the President is above all laws. Any law that he breaks is one he has just temporarily revoked (for national security reasons of course).

He's a dictator (benevolent of course). Why? Because it's simple, it's efficient and it's easy to understand.

Related Link