The Cult of the Presidency

by Sean Drummond

There has been a tremendous debate throughout our country’s history on how the Office of the Presidency should function, and in particular just how much power should be given to the President.   This was one of the central issues that faced our Founding Fathers, and even today is a topic of debate among various scholars.  I agree with Gene Healy of the Cato Institute that America has been consumed by a “Cult of the Presidency”.  This term is used to describe the issue of expanding Presidential powers that our country has witnessed over the last few decades. With the growing influence that the President has gained, many American citizens have become enamored with the office, and look towards the Commander-in-Chief in times of peril and flourish.  I think that the general public certainly desires (and somewhat expects) the President to solve problems on a wide range of scales, both large and small.

With the growing influence of the office come more responsibilities.  In recent years especially, we have seen the President take on issues of a massive variety and wide scale.  A prominent example comes to mind when former President George Bush was expected to acknowledge the issue that former Vice President Al Gore made very public:  global warming.  Not only did Bush need to make the decisions to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but he also had to decide the best strategy to pursue with the conflict in Iraq.  This exemplifies the wide change in dynamics that the American people expect the President to deal with.

When the public thinks of politics, it focuses mainly on the President.  The public does not understand, or I think care enough, to learn a great deal about the House or the Senate, important parts of the political puzzle.  I would go as far as to contend that the average American citizen knows more about the President’s personal life then can even name five members of Congress!  A large part of this “Cult of the Presidency” is the idea that most citizens put blame on the President for failure to get legislation passed, and don’t consider the difficulties that Presidents face when negotiating with Congress.  Sometimes this underestimation of Congress can even be traced back to Presidents themselves.  During an interview with President Truman during his last night in office, he indicated that Eisenhower would expect the Presidency to work just like the military, where those at the top would give orders and expect compliance.  Truman concluded the interview by saying, “Poor Ike, he’ll find it very frustrating. He will give orders and nothing will happen.” Part of this problem is the media and the attention that they give to the president.  They almost treat him as a celebrity.  They stress coverage on the wrong items, very little on legislation and a lot on their personal life.  An example can be found with how much press was given to the dog that the Obama family received upon moving into the White House, or how women across the country kept close watch on the fashion sense of Jackie Kennedy.

We're just not that efficient, Ike...

I believe that these exaltations of the President started relatively recently. One of the first recent Presidents to have an entire nation looking upon them in a time of need was Franklin Roosevelt.  He was a very charismatic public speaker who was adored by many within the nation for his Great Depression relief programs he put into place, collectively known as the “New Deal”. His New Deal legislation greatly expanded the government and connected with people on an emotional level, since many of their futures were now in the hands of Roosevelt.  His great popularity and trust from the American people to guide the nation through crises like the Great Depression and World War II, led him to be the only president to be elected to 4 terms in office, which before that time and even today is unheard of.