Do you think Barack Obama is an imperial presidency (For people doing 3C and 4C)

This thread was made more for a way of putting together all of our ideas and build up a good answer to a question involving the imperial presidency.

My thoughts...

Firstly I DO NOT think Obama is imperial, far from it at the moment. It would be difficult for him to be anyway due to the high levels of partisanship in congress. For the most part he has relied on Congress to pass his main policy proposals such as Obamacare and his fiscal stimulus package in 2009. Even though Obamacare passed it was significantly watered down, even by the Democrats' conservative wing at the time. He consistently says he 'can't wait for congress', clearly showing that, especially more recently that congress is significantly limiting what he can do. His proposals for Gun Control in 2013 and, more recently, his pushes for immigration reform have all failed due to the divided congress.

However, I think as a result of this he has had to resort to using extra constitutional powers, which are considered controversial. These include signing statements and executive orders, and conservatives such as Texas Senator Ted Cruz criticise him for abusing his power as President and acting 'imperial'. Obama has interpreted the National Defense and Authorisation Act in such a way to better suit his administration and this has been widely criticised. He has also used executive orders in areas such as gun control and controlling immigration. Even a bill was introduced recently called 'Enforce the Law' act which was created to force the president to implement the law how it is written by congress. Of course this bill is certain to fail as it has the contend with the Democratic Senate and the Presidential Veto, not that it will even get to the president.

But anyway, that is just brief. Would anyone like to add? Tell me if you would like me to add similar threads on other topics.

Also it will be greatly appreciated if anyone can extend any of the points I have written. Maybe some detail about the executive orders that he used?

Thanks and get posting!

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 1

username1078254

OP

11

And please excuse my misuse of certain words, such as in the title. I never bother to proof read much.

Reply 2

Endless Blue

19

I agree, I don't think he is good evidence of an imperial presidency. I'd actually argue that Obama demonstrates a bifurcated presidency quite nicely; he's consistently struggled to pass his agenda in the face of Republican opposition in Congress but in terms of foreign policy he has demonstrated considerable power, e.g leading initiatives such as drone strikes, Bin Laden assassination etc.

Reply 3

username1078254

OP

11

Original post by Endless Blue

I agree, I don't think he is good evidence of an imperial presidency. I'd actually argue that Obama demonstrates a bifurcated presidency quite nicely; he's consistently struggled to pass his agenda in the face of Republican opposition in Congress but in terms of foreign policy he has demonstrated considerable power, e.g leading initiatives such as drone strikes, Bin Laden assassination etc.

Does the Bin Laden assassination demonstrate an abuse of power? Was it an executive order by the president? You could also talk about Libya and his evasion of the War Powers Act there.

Reply 4

Endless Blue

19

Original post by eagleclawsan

Does the Bin Laden assassination demonstrate an abuse of power? Was it an executive order by the president? You could also talk about Libya and his evasion of the War Powers Act there.

I didn't mean it was an abuse of powers, but it does demonstrate the extent of Presidential power in foreign policy/non-domestic outside of the standard expected powers.

How did he circumvent the WPA in Libya? (Serious question, unsure.)

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5

username1078254

OP

11

Original post by Endless Blue

I didn't mean it was an abuse of powers, but it does demonstrate the extent of Presidential power in foreign policy/non-domestic outside of the standard expected powers.

How did he circumvent the WPA in Libya? (Serious question, unsure.)

Posted from TSR Mobile

He was using jet fighters and no ground troops. Most of the time the US was just aiding foreign nations by providing aircraft carrier support. He made the excuse that no ground troops were in use and so he was not outside of his constitutional powers. Also he sent ships and aircraft carriers to Libya without the consent of Congress.

Reply 6

Endless Blue

19

Original post by eagleclawsan

He was using jet fighters and no ground troops. Most of the time the US was just aiding foreign nations by providing aircraft carrier support. He made the excuse that no ground troops were in use and so he was not outside of his constitutional powers. Also he sent ships and aircraft carriers to Libya without the consent of Congress.

Ah, so basically he used aircraft to circumvent the WPA.

Interesting stuff, thanks.

Reply 7

123lopl

I would agree both with yourself and Endless Blue in your assessment of the Obama presidency, and while he has demonstrated imperial aspects abroad they've been pretty limited. I know that one of the executive orders that Obama used was in 2012 over ending the deportation of young illegal immigrants who had arrived as children, as part of his plan for immigration. There are lists of loads of them online, if you type in '2012 Obama executive orders', the archives website near the top has a list of absolutely loads. Hope this helps!

Reply 8

ORTB94

6

Therefore a perfect demonstration of Aaron Wildavsky's 'The two presidents' thesis that the president is imperilled at home but strong abroad. Domestically Obama has been a lame duck since 2010. Unlike previous incidents of Congressional deadlock, Obama has stayed out of the fight to help his approval ratings (still pretty high) but at the same time making him especially weak. However as you point out he was strong over foreign policy but even that has been weaker recently - criticisms and virtual veto of intervention in Syria, Benghazigate and in the last week he's talked about America needing to be more diplomatic and less hawkish (rightly or wrongly but conveniently suiting a president unable to do anything).

Alternatively or indeed implicitly you might link that to Richard Neustadt's analysis of the presidency as depending on the 'power to pursued' - Obama was able to do that in 2009/10 because of the optimism and hype that surrounded him meaning Congress wanted to 'coat-tail' him and therefore allowed him to be strong. Since 2010 though he's become far more divisive in society and the Republican (especially Tea Party) surge in Congress (which essentially thinks he's a devilish Kenyan muslim terrorist) proudly wants nothing to do with him (meaning Obama's very words have become toxic to the right/centre right) while moderate Democrats have become more cautious of associations with him (34 Democrats in the House voted against Obamacare). Basically Obama's aura has failed him and that has cost him his coat-tails and therefore he is no longer able to pursued and so no longer powerful (and certainly not imperial).

I'm pretty sure they won't word a question on presidential power around Schlesinger anymore -
it's been an outdated description virtually ever since the book was written.

Do you think Barack Obama is an imperial presidency (For people doing 3C and 4C)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you