"After the Imperial Presidency"

{1} "By the time Clinton finished his second term, it looked to many experts as if the White House would be working with diminished authority for years to come: the presidential historian Michael Beschloss called George W. Bush ‘the first truly postimperial president.’ "
--Jonathan Mahler; After the Imperial Presidency; The New York Times Magazine; November 9, 1980; page 44.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and aide to President John Kennedy and adviser to Senator Robert Kennedy, coined the term "the imperial presidency" in his 1973 classic book by the same name. Schlesinger had begun the book, which focused upon the history of attempts to expand executive powers during times of war, before the Watergate scandal had come to the nation’s attention. His goal when he began the book was to warn the public of the dangerous course that Nixon was taking us on; his timing in writing the book is a testament to understanding and applying history to current events.

Yet in an earlier essay, "The Inscrutability of History" (published in his 1967 book "The Bitter Heritage"), Schlesinger had warned that historians are not always able to predict the future. Beschloss’s prediction that Bush would be a post-imperial president is an obvious example. More, Schlesinger noted that historians who are working for a particular politician are prone to make errors, due to a lack of objectivity. It’s interesting to note the example of Sean Wilentz, who wrote the foreword to the re-release of Schlesinger’s 1963 "The Politics of Hope" and "The Bitter Heritage" in one volume. Wilentz, one of the outstanding historians of our era, proved less capable in his role as an aide in the 2008 primaries.

Thus, I was pleased to read Jonathan Mahler’s objective look at the dangerous conditions that our nation faces, as a result of the actions taken by the Bush-Cheney administration after 9/11. The article begins with these two stark sentences: "Secretly and at times unconstitutionally, the Bush administration expanded executive power. Will the new president and a new Congress redefine who is in charge?"

{2} "The Congress was intimidated after 9/11," (Republican Senator Lindsey Graham) answered. "People were afraid to get in the way of a strong executive who was talking about suppressing a vicious enemy, and we were AWOL for a while, and I’ll take the blame for that. We should have been more aggressive after 9/11 in working with the executive to find a collaboration, and I think the fact that we weren’t probably hurt the country. I wish I had spoken out sooner and louder."
--Jonathan Mahler; After the Imperial Presidency; page 45.

There is plenty of blame to spread around for the damage that has been done to our Constitutional democracy since 9/11. The most obvious people are President George W. Bush and VP Dick Cheney. In his 2004 book "Losing America," Senator Robert Byrd documented how on 9/11, VP Cheney instituted the "shadow government." (pages 78-79) The "continuity of government" had first been developed during the Eisenhower administration, in case of nuclear war. Cheney’s version put approximately 100 people from the executive branch and business community in charge of the federal government, without providing for any role for the legislative or judicial branches. And, as documented in Barton Gellman’s 2008 book "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency," literally every unconstitutional and illegal action taken in the years since 9/11 are a direct result of Cheney’s shadow government.

The federal courts and Congress were never notified by the executive branch that this "change" had taken place. It was not until March of 2002, when the Washington Post first reported on it, that anyone knew. The White House told members of the House and Senate that because the "shadow government" was run out of the office of Chief of Staff Andrew Card, the Congress lacked oversight authority.

The second group that deserves blame in these events is, of course, the members of Congress. This blame is not limited to republicans. A good example is found on pages 301-302 of Gellman’s book: when Jane Harman, the ranking minority leader on the House Intelligence Committee, found out that VP Cheney had clearly violated the law, her first action was to request a meeting with him. In that meeting, Harmon described her plan to provide Cheney with cover to avoid legal consequences.

Today, Harmon is lobbying to be appointed to oversee the intelligence community in the Obama administration. Clearly, the problems that we face cannot be defined in simple "democrat vs republican" terms. Yet, the "democrat vs republican" conflict plays an import role in our understanding of the history that allowed Bush and Cheney to damage the foundations of our Constitutional democracy.

{3} "According to Ornstein, the Senate, and in particular its leader through 1996, Bob Dole, was at first skeptical of Gingrich and his ideological minions in the House. But Dole’s successor, Trent Lott, was more partisan and thus more willing to engage in the politicization of Senate actions like the confirmation of Clinton’s judicial appointments."
--Jonathan Mahler; After the Imperial Presidency; page 45.

Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann published "The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track" in 2006. This valuable book details how Newt Gingrich and a group of radical republicans worked to divide both the House and Senate into hostile camps – democrats vs republicans – which would result in a Congress that was impotent. Their goal was not only to render Congress incapable of functioning as an independent branch of the federal government, but to reduce it to the status of cheerleaders for an imperial presidency.

In fact, the authors detail meetings between members of Congress and VP Dick Cheney, to discuss HJ Res. 67, 107th Congress, 1 session; this proposal would have amended the Constitution of the United States to allow the president to appoint members to the House in times of "national emergency." (pages 199-207 & 253)

In light of this, it seems evident that the problems we face have roots going back further than 9/11.

{4} "They had forgotten, if they ever knew, that the Constitution is designed to be a law for rulers and people alike at all times and under all circumstances; and that no doctrine involving more pernicious consequences to the commonweal has ever been invented by the wit of man than the notion that any of its provisions can be suspended by the President for any reason whatsoever.

"On the contrary, they apparently believe that the President is above the Constitution, and has the autocratic power to suspend its provisions if he decides in his own unreviewable judgment that his actions in doing so promotes his own political interests or the welfare of the nation. As one of them testified before the Senate Select Committee, they believed that the President has the autocratic power to suspend the Fourth Amendment whenever he imagines that some indefinable aspect of national security is involved."
--Senator Sam Ervin; The Senate Watergate Report; page 13.

It is not a coincidence that Senator Ervin’s comments regarding the series of crimes and abuses of power that are known collectively as the "Watergate scandal" apply to today’s situation. Some of the same cast of characters from the Nixon White House moved on to become the participants in the series of crimes and abuses of power known collectively as the "Iran-Contra scandal." And many of the cast of characters from the Reagan-Bush administration moved on into positions of power in the Bush-Cheney administration.

Among the factors that allowed Watergate to metastasize into Iran-Contra and then the full-blown Bush-Cheney scandals was presidential pardons. The House was prepared to impeach Nixon, and when he knew the Senate would convict him, he resigned in disgrace. Though Congress opted to end its impeachment proceedings against Nixon, he still faced the potential of criminal charges. However, President Ford granted him a full pardon.

Likewise, on Christmas Eve in 1992, President Bush the Elder granted pardons to former Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, Elliot Abrams, former national security adviser Robert McFarlane, and three other intelligence operatives.

A second factor was a lessening of Congressional resolve to address "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the executive branch, after Watergate. Senator John Kerry was the most impressive member of the legislative branch in his attempts to uncover the crimes and abuses of power involved in the Iran-Contra scandals. The Congress had enough documentation to impeach and convict President Reagan, but opted not to.

In an ugly demonstration of the harmful potential of the "democrat vs republican" mentality that Gingrich & Co. had infected the Congress with, on December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives impeached President Clinton for purely political purposes. On February 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted him. But the damage was done, which is why Beschloss predicted that Bush2 would be "the first truly postimperial president."

{5} "For those concerned about the expansion of presidential power, Barack Obama’s answers to the Boston Globe’s 2007 questionnaire were encouraging. Among other things, he said the president can’t conduct surveillance without warrants or detain United States citizens indefinitely as unlawful enemy combatants. He also said it’s illegal for the president to ignore international treaties like the Geneva Conventions and that if Congress prohibits a specific interrogation technique by law, the president cannot employ it. ‘The president is not above the law,’ Obama said."
--Jonathan Mahler; After the Imperial Presidency; page 62.

As a US Senator, Barack Obama was among the majority of congressional members who did not support calls to impeach President Bush or VP Cheney. However, he has said that if he was elected, he would have his Department of Justice review the activities of the Bush administration.

The US Supreme Court, as Mahler notes, has rarely ruled against an administration in a time of war. However, as Barack Obama knows, the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration in four important cases, in a time of war. As a Constitutional scholar, President Obama surely understands the implications.

While the executive and judicial branches have the potential to respond to the damage that Bush-Cheney have done to our nation, there is an absolute need for both houses of the Congress to fulfill their obligations – most importantly, they must uphold their oath of office to protect the Constitution.

From examining the history of the Congress from the Watergate era to today, it is evident that it was most effective in upholding their oath to protect the Constitution in the days when Sam Ervin led the Senate Watergate hearings, and the House was preparing to issue articles of impeachment. And, after Nixon resigned, Congress engaged in a number of investigations of related illegal activities by the intelligence community.

Mahler reports that President Obama is expected to reach a compromise with the Bush administration, on what documents will be released to satisfy congressional committees’ requests. As in the Watergate era, Congress can use those documents to request the federal courts force the Bush administration to release further evidence.

History also shows that allowing those who break the law and abuse the power of their office to avoid legal consequence is but a form of sowing the seeds for larger high crimes and misdemeanors in the future.

During his campaign, Barack Obama said that he would need the active participation of the grass roots in order to deal with the problems we face. It is essential that members of the progressive and liberal democratic grass roots demand that he and the Congress address the crimes and abuses of power of the Bush-Cheney administration.

I am willing to work towards resolving the DU Secretary of State crisis, but still have hopes that people will consider this thread as worthy of discussion.

It's astonishing to realize how many Watergate players were knee-deep in both Bush administrations.

And it is interesting to consider if the "neocon/AIPAC espionage scandal" (little reported in the corporate media) was anything, if not the offspring of Iran-Contra.

cut their teeth during Watergate, wheras figures as diverse as Eliot Abrams, John Bolton and Adm. John Poindexter (anyone remember post-911 DARPA's Orwellian plans for Total Information Awareness . . . to include a futures market in terrorism?) all rose to prominence in the wake of Iran-Contra.

N.B. Karl Rove was the subject of a preliminary probe by Watergate prosecutors investigating the activities of Donald Segretti's "dirty tricksters" ca. 1969-72. If memory serves, investigators dropped the probe of Rove's actions in Texas on behalf of CREEP, bc investigators considered Rove too small time.

Ah, the irony, eh?

is found on page 256 of the Senate Watergate Report. Like many of the others from Iran-Contra, he was exactly what you note: a small fry, but learning the trade.

was Obama's appeal to get people involved in the government again. Now that he has won, I see that he is also keenly aware of the consequences of that appeal--and still welcomes it.

That's exactly the "change" he had in mind. If we don't hold DC's feet to the fire on issues like this, we fail OUR president.

Will the shadow government disappear when Obama takes office? I am assuming yes, considering how much I have heard about his having quite a number of people looking to restore and undo much of what the evil empire has done. It gives me hope that we are finally on the right tract. There is still danger, however, in the obstructionism of people like Newt who is another corrupt, power hungry sob. He's still out there waiting to stir things up and maybe...if he can swing it...get himself into the WH. He and Boehner and the likes of others are already saying how they will do their best to see that Obama fails. That is where we come in. It's not over yet, by any stretch.

And one other thing. How has Newt managed to keep his part in lying this country into the war under wraps? You never see it mentioned, then or now. That would be a good place to start in putting Newt in his place. It could be interesting if Obama brings McCain aboard somehow. He, McCain, must know how Newt screwed him on the bailout business. Will revenge be exacted?

In a general sense, relatively few politicians are willing to give up "power." There are perhaps more obvious examples in other countries, where dictators refuse to leave office. But even in our own country, we see people like a certain Senator from Alaska, who is fighting to remain in power.

Barack Obama paraphases both Frederick Douglas and Malcolm X: power concedes nothing without a demand, and usually a struggle.

In 1976, after President Carter took office, he made a sincere attempt to bring about a balance of powers among the three branches in the federal government. In his recently published "Journals," Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., noted that President Carter did not have the working relationship with any of the powerful groups within the Congress that allowed him to be successful on the level the nation really needed. I believe that President Obama is better prepared for this.

Regarding Newt Gingrich: Ambassador Joseph Wilson's book was one of the few sources of information on Gingrich's role. There were a few lesser ones. But here is a man who, though not an elected or appointed official, went with VP Cheney and Scooter Libby to the CIA's headquarters, to pressure CI analysts to change their reports on the "threat" that Iraq posed.

Fox News, of course, has him on as an "expert," without once -- not a single time -- revealing that he was an active participant in these meetings, or in the planning of the operation against Wilson & Plame.

And today, we see him attempting to promote the neoconservative cause as the "future" for the republican party.

of my concern. That no one relinquishes power willingly. Add that to the statement Barack once made about impeachment and it does leave one to wonder. So far he has resisted being too impressed with himself while at the same time recognizing his abilities. Lucky for him, we're on it and will keep guard. LOL.

the issues involving impeachment with anyone from Obama's office; in fact, all of my discussions with people connected to him have been in the context of his campaign. But I have had numerous discussions with staff from the offices of several other people in Congress on the topic of impeachment, including a few who favored it, and more who did not.

A common theme among those who did not support impeachment was that Bush and Cheney had apparently been more likely to have engaged in abuses of power, rather than outright crimes. Both, of course, are grounds for impeachment: "high crimes and misdemeanors" literally means crimes and abuses of the power of office. Nixon faced an article of impeachment that was based on the abuse of power, along with some for crimes. Likewise, President Clinton's impeachment was based on two criminal charges, and an abuse of power.

Of course, I disagreed with them in regard to the issues of criminal charges. However, those who I spoke with tended to think the House and Senate were unlikely to impeach and convict for abuse of power, and would definitely not consider criminal charges, because the Bush-Cheney actions were taken in "a time of war."

I think it is possible, even likely, that Senator Obama shared this belief. However, candidate Obama has said that President Obama's Department of Justice will review the records to, among other things, see if crimes were indeed committed. So the door has not been closed.

Only a fool won't/can't, and those going along to get along, see that these are criminals of the highest order. We have seen the arc of the moral universe bending long lately and I take comfort in that. Based on that I expect to see some form of justice meted out to many over the next decade. And not just the admin felons but the neocons who aided and abetted them, egged them on. The real neocons not the imaginary ones that live here at DU. Such as the ones who thought Palin was a suitable choice.

Here's a question for you...will I Liar be pardoned?

There are a couple of factors. First, Bush is a cold human being. He doesn't mind watching anyone who he believes hasn't served his needs perfectly, suffer. Scotty McClellan is the perfect example. I remember being stunned on the day Scott "resigned." He and Bush strolled out on the White House lawn, and he was having trouble controlling his emotions. Bush, his "good friend," became increasingly giddy, in direct proportion to Scott's suffering.

I have a friend who met with Bush when he was governor, about a death penalty case. And he has told me that Bush is cold in a disturbing way, that he took an obvious joy in sending his "enemy" to their death. Add to that his enjoying his friend's pain. Nice guy.

Still, self-preservation comes in to play. He might have gathered from Scott that not everyone will remain quiet in the future. His commuting Libby's prison sentence was definitely to protect Cheney, and thus himself. Many believe he will pardon Libby this holiday season (or in January).

It is possible, even likely, that he will grant pardons to protect himself. He'll pretend he is "helping" President Obama move into the future, because he is already desperately trying to associate himself with Obama. One can see that Obama is the man Bush wishes he was now; in the past, he has pretended to be Rambo, Reagan, Clint Eastwood, Mike Tyson, and others.

Now if the big dick has his say, the Liar will get a pardon. However the honeymoon may be over between the two of them and junior may want to spite the guy who he allowed to lead him into so much trouble.

Can you pardon someone who hasn't been charged with a crime, a just in case pardon, like say Rove?

The best example was Nixon. After he resigned, the House was not going to go forward with impeachment, and there were no criminal charges pending. President Ford's pardon could not have prevented the Congress from impeaching, (though impeachment could only have resulted in Nixon's being restricted from ever being president again). Ford was preventing Nixon from criminal charges that would have certainly resulted in his being sentenced to prison.

So we're going to see what we're going to see. We may be able to tell a great deal from who is or isn't pardoned.


And yes, it has turned out to be apretty dandy thread.

is an incredible piece of literature. It opened my eyes on some subjects I knew a bit about and other subjects that I was still in the dark on. I am going to pass the word on this one.

This statement: "Today, Harmon is lobbying to be appointed to oversee the intelligence community in the Obama administration. Clearly, the problems that we face cannot be defined in simple "democrat vs republican" terms. Yet, the "democrat vs republican" conflict plays an import role in our understanding of the history that allowed Bush and Cheney to damage the foundations of our Constitutional democracy" is probably one of the most important. I don't expect the battle to be completely over with the change over in administrations. There are many Democrats that don't care if we have an imperial presidency as long as it is from their party. For them it is a political game. For the rest of us, it's a matter of life and death.

I read now where some liberals want a new law for "preventive detention". Many of them will no doubt have strong access to Obama as well as their "think tanks". This is where "we the people" (if the term is to mean anything) need to continue to be active and not sit around and say or believe everything is ok now that the election is over. Freedom requires vigilance.

We cannot afford to sit back, and think the problems will be resolved by those in the executive and legislative branches. As you know, I've said many times that Obama reminds me of JFK, and that there is "unfinished business" from the 1960s that we need to tend to. But I recognize that there is no way that we are going to be magically transported back in time to a sunnier time. Can't happen. And it is equally impossible that Barack Obama and Washington, DC will solve our problems for us. Won't happen.

Freedom requires vigilance. And it demands constant struggle.

responses. One of the better threads I have read in 4 years at DU.

Small personal note: I worked on Marcy Winograd's 2006 primary challenge to Harman. Although Harman outspent her by more than 10-1, Winograd still captured 38.5 per cent of the vote, in what I consider a stunning rebuke to Harman by a sizable portion of her own constituents. Harman exemplifies, imho, the "Imperial Tribune." Speculation has it that Harman was fully briefed on the CIA's and DOD's torture junta and stayed entirely silent in the face of massive illegality.

Harman faced no 3rd-party challenge in this year's general election (nor any challenge in the earlier primary). I just cast no vote at all in the race. I think progressives in Harman's district are just plumb wore out!

I think it's a good thread .... not a lot of responses, but there is an advantage in quality over quantity sometimes.

Harmon was definitely aware of much of what was going on. And she supported it. She supports an unconstitutional, anti-democratic form of government, so long as it meets her person goals in international politics. So much so, in fact, that she was willing to help try to provide cover, when she was concerned that Cheney & Co faced legal consequences.

I want to thank you very much for working on Marcy Winograd's primary campaign. I have a feeling that, should Harmon be defeated in a primary, she would pull a Lieberman.

a layperson's analysis of the Winograd-Harman 2006 matchup.

The district is a classic case of a jerrymandered pocket borough, extending southward from the far-west (and strongly progressive) neighborhoods of Venice\Palms\Mar Vista to the South Bay (and less progressive) bedroom community of Torrance. Despite Harman's massive spending advantage, Winograd won narrowly on the Westside, while Harman won resoundingly in the South Bay.

Why? Harman voted for Iraq-nam and for the malignant Bankruptcy Bill. (Winograd and PDLA firmly opposed both.) I chalk up Harman's victory to widespread ignorance in the district of her actual stances on the issues, coupled with her advantages in name recognition and money.

But the 2006 primary revealed that there is little affection for Harman on the Westside.

I have completely given up on Harman, a widely shared sentiment among members of the anti-war community here. I no longer bother phoning or writing her office. I now simply assume that Harman will vote against the interests of the working class and for the interests of the crony capitalist class.

Winograd actually came to the Mar Vista peace vigil one Friday evening during the primary campaign and stood with us for an hour! What a contrast!

On edit: no offense to Poly Sci "policy wonks" intended from this strict "grammar wonk" :)

My first thought is in regards to how easily the national conversation regarding presidential powers is perverted. They merely spread the idea that "the president swears an oath to first and foremost protect the people of America". He is, we are told, to be revered as the Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. citizens.

In fact, of course, his oath compels him to protect, above all else, the Constitution of the United States; he is Commander-in-Chief not of every American, but of the armed forces. But by propagating the notion that the President is our chieftain whose primary job is to save us from our enemies, the principal premise of American democracy is subverted.

Secondly, with regards to Obama's statements regarding impeachment: I believe that a reconstituted Department of Justice, when functioning again as it is supposed to as ordained by law, will act with the inexorable tenacity of rust. The great battleship of lies built in Cheney's imperial shipyard won't be torpedoed or destroyed in a single spectacular explosion. Rather, the course of justice, as it progresses, will ferret out the smaller misdeeds, and lead step by step to the larger crimes, as described once upon a time by Deep Throat.

With dedication, the support of the grass roots citizenry, and a little luck, the machinery of American justice will restore us to the principles that make American democracy the singular historical advancement it has been, and was meant to be, even if we never see the likes of Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Addington in the docket of a court.