The Presidency: A Short Governmental Course

The Original Presidency:

Our president, whom we often describe as the nation’s Chief Executive Officer, was not really described as a CEO in the Constitution.  The fact is that our founding fathers never defined what the president or the Executive Branch were supposed to do, so George Washington created the ground rules for both functions as he went along.  As Washington saw it, the president was actually just the chief administrative officer [CAO] or chief political officer, and his job was to ‘administer’ what the Congress wanted done – a view now obscured by tradition and by subsequent presidential personalities (although it is true Washington also overstepped his own boundaries a few times).

A SHORT GOVERNMENT COURSE

The Presidency Now

Only since 1921 has the president been required by law to produce a federal budget each January.  He is now required to give Congress an idea of how his administration is spending the tax money they have instructed him to spend.  However, as ‘acting CEO’ our presidents also use that process to include new goals and initiatives in the budget.  

The Constitution says: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient – a statement which seems to suggest the president should function as CEO and which seems to move the leadership power further away from the electorate.  To take that view, however, would tend to undermine the rationale for why we even have a Congress (unless their sole purpose is to be the keeper of the purse strings – but to do that effectively they’d still have to have control of initiatives).  

So the real question is – does the public get to write the menu or are we merely allowed to order from the choices somebody else decides to offer?  And the CEO/Chef offering the menu? We own the place, but who’s in charge?

We (both the public and the Congress) have become conditioned to look to the President to indicate national initiatives by the way he presents his budget, but the Constitution does not give him the power to dictate such choices.  That power is reserved to the voters and to/through  their Congressional surrogates – but it has been usurped by presidential personalities ever since Theodore Roosevelt simply seized power from ‘the bully pulpit’ and was not challenged.  He stated purposes, set goals, and commanded Congress to do his bidding.  He saw the need for leadership, and provided it – and was lionized for it.  (Lincoln did much the same thing, but his was a time of ‘emergency’, not ‘peacetime’.)

In 1985 Congress required the president to include in his budget the goal of reducing the federal debt to zero – but this was obviously a "futile requirement" since the president has only the veto with which to contest Congress’ authority to spend whatever it wants to spend.  (Congress gave itself the same goal – but also failed to observe it).  This is a perfect example of the fact that the president’s power to say no is not the same as the power to lead  and that nobody seems to be in a position to exhibit leadership.  

(In the 2000 election year the candidates made all sorts of promises about how they were going to handle the projected budget surpluses – while at the same time the Congress was passing spending bills which essentially wiped out those anticipated surpluses.  The ‘CEO public’ has the right to look at the federal checkbook and make informed decisions about all budget items – and there’s no reason that checkbook shouldn’t be open for inspection 365 days a year and be able to project the impacts of all proposed spending permutations. We’ll come back to this point.)

Also please note that the Constitution does not require the president to give a State of the Union report each year (only “from time to time”) – and that today’s annual presidential State of the Union report is only a vague approximation of the feedback the public would need if they were to try to exercise their leadership (which is why ‘the loyal opposition’ party is also allowed to present their version of that very important report).  

The president’s ability to take the initiative is actually based on the fact that as CEO he has the power to create administrative rules and policies that have the same weight as laws. But presidential ‘executive’ power is often a matter of assertive personality or sales ability or politicking – not at all comparable to the leadership initiative the CEO of a corporation can exercise.  The president is a very influential pilot, but he was never designated as the captain of the ship of state.  He was never given the authority to determine where the ship was to go, or why.

Presidents who imagine they are CEOs have become accustomed, in modern times, to initiating vigilante ‘peacekeeping’ military missions across other nations’ borders – but they do not actually have the authority to play frontier sheriffs and send posses into others’ domains.  This alone is an indication that presidential authority needs to be better defined – and better understood.  Ie; War Powers Act.

The Power Dynamics

In a democracy, with the CEO power diffused into the hands of the voters, we elect 535 ‘surrogate CEOs’ to collect/spend the tax money and generally oversee the operations.  However, due to the doctrine of the separation of powers those surrogates neither set operating goals nor exact measurements of administrative performance to help them function as surrogate leaders.  We have no king, czar, emperor or dictator, but we do have 535 people who have “given up the power” and now being asked to act that way – and with whom we find fault if they do as the system demands.  

‘The system’ is clearly in control of the country, and if the voters are going to maintain their authority the system must somehow be made to answer to them in the Midterms– Perhaps With ... A “New” them answering to the system.  Unfortunately, most voters are conditioned to accept being told what to think or do rather than to actually think like their  CEO-leaders.  We are conditioned to expect our politicians to tell us what we should think or do as a nation – and that’s not what democracy is supposed to be all about.  As a result, the command-and-control dynamics of (the ideal of democracy) in our current system are seriously impaired but not the "Idea". Or perhaps we shoulds turn our governing over to AI.