Over the past three weeks, President-elect Barack Obama has compiled a stunning transition team, paving his way for a “smooth transition” into the White House. With prominent figures such as Senator Hilary Clinton in his prospective Cabinet, our nation’s leader seems calm and capable in handling all the problems we’re facing at this turning point in history.
However, while President Obama will certainly take the executive action necessary to ease the American public in this time of crisis, I must wonder whether all these responsibilities should be placed on the shoulders of one man. In the next four years, our president will most likely have the opportunity to guide us through a war, salvage our faltering economy, instate nationwide healthcare and social reforms, and appoint one or more Supreme Court justices, continually extending the power of the president’s administration.
While I am assured our new president is sincere in his promises for change in America and has the best intentions in mind, the American public should remain prudent and skeptical of our ever-expanding executive branch. We have seen the harms an unbridled executive can commit, from a gross enlargement of the military-industrial complex (and its associated executive benefits) to illegal wiretappings on American citizens. Surely, some more extreme actions have been justified in the past, but as our system of checks and balances slowly erodes under the pressures of “crisis mode,” we can only be increasingly wary of the latitude our political leaders take with their powers.
Of course, I would love to put my full trust in the Obama administration and hope that change will naturally be pursued and flourish in the course of his term(s). But as politically-active citizens, it is our right and responsibility to keep our leaders under scrutiny and hold them to their campaign promises. Else, we’ll be watching the balance of our delicate republic slowly decay in the wake of our heedlessness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Two thoughts, Tom Rags.
I think that, while our president does have stunning responsibilities, it’s important to recognize that Obama’s team will share a large load in this burden as well. It may be that blame or praise be given more to the president, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he is the only driving force in the administration. Particularly with this president, I have heard him state his interest in an administration that, while with clear, agreed-upon goals, allows members to take more active roles their line of expertise, and not be at the mercy of the constant attention of the president. Hopefully such a style is effective and weakens the case for too much control from one individual.
I agree with you that, especially with the impending need for Supreme Court appointments, this particular president will have immense power. The executive branch, a Congress with a majority party of which he is the leader of, and influence in the judicial branch. It is amazing how much we give, even in a constitutional democracy, to one man. I personally think/hope we couldn’t have made a better choice. But, then again, my name is Baracrates.
Second, just a note that I tend to view the military-industrial complex you mentioned as more of a Congressional problem. I realize that this current administration, particularly the vice-president, has ties to the growing industry you cited, but from now on I think there may be more room for foul play or unnecessary expansion from lobbying or kickbacks to representatives and senators.
Baracrates-
I agree Obama's administration seems very diverse and should mitigate the singular control granted the president. Nevertheless, I still view the actions of the Obama Cabinet to be arms of a singular, centralized executive power. Also, I do agree that the military-industrial growth is a Congressional problem as well (not just out of foul play, but for the economic sanctity of the regions those Congressmen represent). However, with executive powers fostering the growth of such a system and gaining additional powers (albeit granted by the legislative bodies), I believe there is reasonable cause for skepticism.
Especially in light of the havoc wreaked by the Bush administration both domestically and abroad, I can understand a certain skepticism about the immense powers and responsibilities associated with the presidency. However, I think you are underestimating the system of checks and balances and overestimating executive power; the government framework prevents one branch from unilaterally creating legislation. The "illegal wiretapping" you write about in your post, for example, was "legitimized" by the Senate, who, according to the LATimes in July, "gave final approval on Wednesday to a major expansion of the government’s surveillance powers" and provided "legal immunity for the phone companies that cooperated in the National Security Agency wiretapping program he approved after the Sept. 11 attacks." The military-industrial complex, as you have both noted, is definitely a congressional issue as well; only Congress controls the budget and passes legislation.
Baracrates, you ask "whether all these responsibilities should be placed on the shoulders of one man," but I think it's important to note that Obama will not be shouldering these responsibilities alone. In addition to the legislative and judicial branches of government who will be regulating the executive power, Obama will have a well-stocked cabinet to council him. I think it is safe to say that other highly-qualified members of the administration - including big names like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton - will be of enormous aid in helping the next president deal with country plagued by a faltering economy, enormous government spending, and immense global unpopularity.
Post a Comment