Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

The White House sent out word that up till now President Obama has humbly tried to work through Congress, but Congress has balked, and so now he is going to wield his executive authority like Thor’s hammer. The truth is nearly the opposite. President Obama’s domestic agenda going forward looks modest, while in the past five years he has fired off nearly as many executive orders per year as George W. Bush. Without congressional authority, he invaded Libya, blasted suspected terrorists with drones, immunized groups of illegal immigrants from the law, initiated greenhouse gas regulation, authorized N.S.A. spying programs and much else. None of this was but Congress did not participate in the policy making. Unilateral presidential action in foreign relations — aside from initial decisions to launch major wars and certain kinds of treaty making — has been the norm for at least a century. Unilateral presidential action in domestic regulation started in the New Deal under FDR. Congress grants enormous discretionary authority to the executive to set policy through regulation, and while it intervenes sporadically — with hearings, budgetary decisions, minor statutory interventions and so on — the bulk of decisionmaking is made by the executive. Truman desegregated the military with an executive order Reagan used one to reorganize the federal bureaucracy. Why has this happened Citizens demand all kinds of goods from the government — security, protection from financial crises, pollution control. Congress is disabled by its open, decentralized structure from making decisions quickly. Only a specialized, hierarchically controlled institution led by a single electorally accountable figure is supple enough to give the people what they want. Since Congress cannot deliver on its own, it has handed over authority to the executive. Unilateral executive power raises three concerns. The first is that the president will use his powers to indulge his ideological fancies like the Sun King. But, in fact, the president cares more about national public opinion than Congress does. The president alone has a national constituency and controls the fortunes of his party. The second is that presidential fiat shortcircuits democratic debate — as illustrated by the secret determination of surveillance policy. But most of what the president does is routine stuff that does not require public debate, and nearly all of it is public, so where the public takes an interest, debate ensues. And where the government must act secretly, only the president can lead it. The third is that unilateral executive action inevitably leads to tyranny. This foundingera belief has entered American D.N.A. But the founders lived at a time when kings ruled most countries their historical referents were Caesar and Cromwell. Centuries of democratic experience teach a contrary lesson. It turns out that in a kind of paradox the vast legal powers of the president engender distrust among the public, and so he must proceed cautiously in order to maintain public support