Bad for Democracy

Last updated
Bad for Democracy
Bad for Democracy.jpg
First edition
Author Dana D. Nelson
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Subjectpolitics, democracy
Publisher University of Minnesota Press
Publication date
September 19, 2008
Media typeCloth/jacket [1]
Pages256 pages (1st edition, hardcover)
ISBN 978-0-8166-5677-6 [1]

Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People (2008) is a non-fiction book written by Vanderbilt professor Dana D. Nelson. It is notable for its criticism of excessive presidential power and for her call for substantive political reform. Nelson's focus is not on particular presidents, but she argues that the office of the presidency itself "endangers the great American experiment." [2] [3]

Contents

Overview

Nelson argues the United States presidency has become too powerful and that all that citizens seem to do, politically, is vote for a president every four years and not much else. [4] In her book, she described how the minimal task of voting blinds people to possibilities for substantive political participation: "The once-every-four-years hope for the lever pull sensation of democratic power blinds people to the opportunities for democratic representation, deliberation, activism and change that surrounds us in local elections." [5] A reviewer commenting on her book echoed this theme: "We confuse our ... single vote that infinitesimally affects the outcome of a Presidential Election – with the operations of a functioning democracy," and the reviewer suggested that it is illusory that "voting in presidential elections somehow epitomizes democratic civic engagement." [6]

Detailed argument

Nelson wrote "Plenty of presidents have worked to increase presidential power over the years, but the theory of the unitary executive, first proposed under President Reagan, has been expanded since then by every president, Democrat and Republican alike." [7] Nelson elaborated that "the unitary executive promised undivided presidential control of the executive branch and its agencies, expanded unilateral powers and avowedly adversarial relations with Congress." [7]

Nelson blamed The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society for providing "a constitutional cover for this theory, producing thousands of pages in the 1990s claiming – often erroneously and misleadingly – that the framers themselves had intended this model for the office of the presidency." [7] Nelson wrote that uncheckable presidential power has been expanded by using executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements—that already allow presidents to enact a good deal of foreign and domestic policy without aid, interference or consent from Congress. [7] She wrote the unitary executive has been justified by an "expansive reading of Article II of the Constitution" complaining about congressional inactivity or national security. Nelson criticized signing statements by presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. [7] A signing statement is "the written text they are allowed to give when signing a bill into law in order to explain their position – not simply to offer warnings and legal interpretations but to make unilateral determinations about the validity of the provisions of particular statutes." [7] Nelson noted that the American Bar Association denounced signing statements as presenting "grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances, that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries." [7] [8] Nelson notes "presidential unilateralism can seem reassuring in times of crisis." [7] Once Congress gives powers to the executive branch, it seldom can get them back. [7] Nelson believes future presidents are unlikely to give up power. "History teaches that presidents do not give up power – both Democrats and Republicans have worked to keep it. And besides, hoping the next president will give back some powers means conceding that it is up to him to make that decision." [7]

Nelson said in a radio interview in January 2009:

The problem with presidentialism is that it trains citizens to look for a strong leader to run democracy for us instead of remembering that that's our job. And it does this in a number of ways. First of all, I think it infantilizes citizens. It teaches us to see the president as the big father of democracy who is going to take care of all the problems for us and handle all of our disagreements. And so that makes us lazy and a little bit childish in our expectations about our responsibilities for our political system. It credits the president with super-heroic powers. Then, that allows him to operate often extralegally and unilaterally, and it teaches us to always want him always to have more power when things are wrong instead of asking why he has so much. [9]

Nelson criticizes excessive worship of the president which she terms presidentialism, that is, "our paternalistic view that presidents are godlike saviors – and therefore democracy's only important figures." [5] People seem to believe a myth that the president can solve all national problems, and she studies how different presidents have encouraged people to think along these lines. She makes an argument that the office of the presidency is essentially undemocratic, and she calls for greater participation by citizens at the local level. [4] She joins a group of academics including Larry Sabato and Robert A. Dahl and Richard Labunski and Sanford Levinson as well as writers such as Naomi Wolf calling for substantive reform of the current Constitution.

Reactions and criticism

Reviewer Russell Cole focused on the historical discussion in Nelson's book. He wrote that Nelson suggested that democracy flourished briefly after the American Revolution but that "enhanced democratic embodiment" declined after ratification of the Constitution, and argued that "behavioral habits that dispose the citizenry so that they take an active role in the ongoing affairs of government" were more extensive during the Colonial epoch than afterwards. [6] When the Constitution established a centralized office, a "trend was set in motion that is comparable to the political transformation undergone by the Roman Republic during the Roman Revolution." [6] The presidency was seen as a realization of the popular will in public policy. [6] The presidency became almost paternalistic, "not only during times of uncertainty, peril, and calamity, but during times unmarked by social drama." In short, the president has come to personify democracy, according to Nelson. [6] But Nelson sees this quality as harmful since it results in citizens becoming "democratically disinclined." [6] Nelson argues that "Americans must learn to acknowledge that the unilateralism of the presidency is antithetical to democratic organization." [6] Nelson wrote that Democracy was a "messy affair" needing "an ongoing public dialog" to find new compromises among shifting factions. [6] Democracy should not be where a Decider is endowed with solitary authority. [6] Cole criticizes Nelson's book at one point for a "lack of originality" regarding the "breadth of the normative section" of her work," but credits her with working towards a new episteme. [6] He noted that Nelson sees benefits in decentralized political structures such as democracy, including resilience. [6]

William Greider of The Nation wrote "Dana Nelson argues provocatively and persuasively‚ that the mythological status accorded the presidency is drowning our democracy. The remedy will not come from Washington. It starts with people rediscovering‚ then reclaiming‚ their birthright as active citizens, restoring meaning to the sacred idea of self-government." [2] [10]

David Bollier wrote "If democratic practice is going to flourish in the United States, the American people are going to have to roll up their sleeves and take on the hard work of self-governance. Dana Nelson offers an astute historical analysis of how the presidency, far from advancing this goal, has actually impeded it." [2]

Minnesota critic Rachel Dykoski (now Rachel Lovejoy) found the book's writing style "long winded." [11] She wrote that Nelson's book "makes the case that we've had 200+ years of propagandized leadership, which has systematically stripped away the checks and balances put in place by our nation's forefathers." [11] Since Franklin Roosevelt, "every president has worked to extend presidential powers in ways that the Constitution's framers would likely have viewed as alarming and profoundly compromising ... The Bush administration ... brazenly partisan ... is not inventing new maneuvers." [11] Nelson argues that there's a "mesmerizing power surrounding the office." [11]

Critic Alexander Cockburn described Nelson's work as a "useful new book" and agreed that the "founders produced a Constitution that gives the president only a thin framework of explicit powers that belong solely to his office." [12]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">President of the United States</span> Head of state and head of government of the United States of America

The president of the United States (POTUS) is the head of state and head of government of the United States of America. The president directs the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Congress</span> Legislative branch of U.S. government

The United States Congress is the legislature of the federal government of the United States. It is bicameral, composed of a lower body, the House of Representatives, and an upper body, the Senate. It meets in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Senators and representatives are chosen through direct election, though vacancies in the Senate may be filled by a governor's appointment. Congress has 535 voting members: 100 senators and 435 representatives. The U.S. vice president has a vote in the Senate only when senators are evenly divided. The House of Representatives has six non-voting members.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Ghana</span> The political organization and parties of Ghana

Politics of Ghana takes place in a framework of a presidential representative democratic republic, whereby the president of Ghana is both head of state and head of government, and of a two party system. The seat of government is at Golden Jubilee House. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and Parliament. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bush Doctrine</span> Foreign policy principles of US President George W. Bush

The Bush Doctrine refers to multiple interrelated foreign policy principles of the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush. These principles include unilateralism, preemptive war, and regime change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Presidential system</span> Form of government

A presidential system, or single executive system, is a form of government in which a head of government, typically with the title of president, leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative branch in systems that use separation of powers. This head of government is in most cases also the head of state. In a presidential system, the head of government is directly or indirectly elected by a group of citizens and is not responsible to the legislature, and the legislature cannot dismiss the president except in extraordinary cases. A presidential system contrasts with a parliamentary system, where the head of government comes to power by gaining the confidence of an elected legislature.

Imperial presidency is a term applied to the modern presidency of the United States. It became popular in the 1960s and served as the title of a 1973 book by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who wrote The Imperial Presidency to address two concerns: that the presidency was uncontrollable and that it had exceeded its constitutional limits. According to professor of political science Thomas E. Cronin, author of The State of the Presidency, the imperial presidency is a term used to define a danger to the American constitutional system by allowing presidents to create and abuse presidential prerogatives during national emergencies. This was based on: (1) presidential war powers vaguely defined in the Constitution, and (2) secrecy – a system used that shielded the Presidency from the usual checks and balances afforded by the legislative and judicial branches.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording:

[The Congress shall have Power ...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water ...

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Yoo</span> American attorney and former government official (born 1967)

John Choon Yoo is a South Korean-born American legal scholar and former government official who serves as the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. Yoo became known for his legal opinions concerning executive power, warrantless wiretapping, and the Geneva Conventions while serving in the George W. Bush administration, during which he was the author of the controversial "Torture Memos" in the War on Terror.

The powers of the president of the United States include those explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution as well as those granted by Acts of Congress, implied powers, and also a great deal of soft power that is attached to the presidency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Republic of Korea</span> Government of South Korea from 1972–1981

The Fourth Republic of Korea was the government of South Korea from November 1972 to March 1981.

<i>Federalist No. 70</i> Federalist Paper by Alexander Hamilton

Federalist No. 70, titled "The Executive Department Further Considered", is an essay written by Alexander Hamilton arguing for a single, robust executive provided for in the United States Constitution. It was originally published on March 15, 1788, in The New York Packet under the pseudonym Publius as part of The Federalist Papers and as the fourth in Hamilton's series of eleven essays discussing executive power.

The unitary executive theory is a legal theory in United States constitutional law which holds that the President of the United States possesses the power to control the entire federal executive branch. The doctrine is rooted in Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive Power" of the United States in the President.

<i>The Imperial Presidency</i> 1973 non-fiction book by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.

The Imperial Presidency is a nonfiction book by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. It was published in 1973 by Houghton Mifflin and reissued in 2004. The book details the history of the presidency of the United States from its conception by the Founding Fathers through the latter half of the 20th century, primarily in the aspects of war powers. Schlesinger's book popularized the term imperial presidency to describe excesses of executive power. The Imperial Presidency has been described as "the most prominent school of thought on executive war powers" and "a lens through which to understand and critique the executive branch in the post-9/11 world".

In United States constitutional law, the Vesting Clauses are three provisions in the United States Constitution which vest legislative power in Congress, executive power in the President, and judicial power in the federal courts.

Peter Milo Shane is a law professor and writer. His best-known scholarly work focuses mainly on two subjects. The first is separation of powers law, especially law and the presidency. His work often explores what he calls an institutional conception of the rule of law in a separation of powers regime. See, e.g., Peter M, Shane, When Inter-branch Norms Break Down: Of Arms-for-Hostages, 'Orderly Shutdowns,' Presidential Impeachments, and Judicial 'Coups,' 12 Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 503 (2004). Under Shane's antiformalist conception, the rule of law is sustained not only by formal legal rules, but perhaps most importantly, by informal norms and conventional behaviors designed to maintain interbranch accountability even when public officials could ignore formal rules with impunity. Peter M. Shane, Madison's Nightmare: How Executive Power Threatens American Democracy 116. Checks and balances in such a system likewise "depend on an assemblage of norms, cooperative arrangements, and informal coordination activities." Id. Following political scientist Kenneth Shepsle, Shane thus calls the rule of law "an unstructured institution." Id. at 117.

Dana D. Nelson is a professor of English at Vanderbilt University and a prominent progressive advocate for citizenship and democracy. She is notable for her criticism—in her books such as Bad for Democracy—of excessive presidential power and for exposing a tendency by Americans towards presidentialism, which she defines as the people's neglect of basic citizenship duties while hoping the president will solve most problems. Her scholarship focuses on early American literature relating to citizenship and democratic government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sanford Levinson</span> American political writer

Sanford Victor Levinson is an American legal scholar known for his writings on constitutional law. A professor at the University of Texas Law School, Levinson is notable for his criticism of the United States Constitution as well as excessive presidential power and has been widely quoted on such topics as the Second Amendment, gay marriage, nominations to the Supreme Court, and other legal issues. He has called for a Second Constitutional Convention of the United States.

Criticism of the United States government encompasses a wide range of sentiments about the actions and policies of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional history of Bolivia</span>

Bolivia has had seventeen constitutions, including the present one, since its foundation in 1825.

References

  1. 1 2 Dana D. Nelson (2009-10-12). "Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People". University of Minnesota Press. Retrieved 2009-10-12.
  2. 1 2 3 "Dana Nelson: Bad for Democracy". Alliance for social, Political, Ethical, and Cultural Thought. 2009-10-12. Retrieved 2009-10-12.
  3. ↑ "Fall 2008 Hardcovers (Part 4)". Publishers Weekly. 2008-06-30. Archived from the original on June 1, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-12.
  4. 1 2 interview by David Schimke (September–October 2008). "Presidential Power to the People – Author Dana D. Nelson on why democracy demands that the next president be taken down a notch". Utne Reader. Retrieved 2009-09-20.
  5. 1 2 David Sirota, Creators Syndicate Inc. (August 22, 2008). "Why cult of presidency is bad for democracy". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-10-12.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Russell Cole (book reviewer) (August 13, 2008). "Bad for Democracy by Dana D. Nelson (book review)". The Populist Party. Archived from the original on December 24, 2008. Retrieved 2009-10-12.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dana D. Nelson (October 11, 2008). "The 'unitary executive' question – What do McCain and Obama think of the concept?". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 16 October 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-12.
  8. ↑ RAY SUAREZ; CHRISTOPHER YOO; BRUCE FEIN (July 24, 2006). "President's Use of 'Signing Statements' Raises Constitutional Concerns – The American Bar Association said President Bush's use of "signing statements," which allow him to sign a bill into law but not enforce certain provisions, disregards the rule of law and the separation of powers. Legal experts discuss the implications". Public Broadcasting System. Archived from the original on 2007-03-21. Retrieved 2009-10-12.
  9. ↑ Dana D. Nelson (January 22, 2009). ""All Things Considered" radio broadcast – A popular presidency: bad for democracy?". MPR News. Retrieved 2009-10-12.
  10. ↑ William Greider of The Nation magazine (2009-10-12). "Bad for Democracy – How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People by Dana D. Nelson" (PDF). University Press UMN Catalog. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 26, 2011. Retrieved 2009-10-12.
  11. 1 2 3 4 Rachel Dykoski (Rachel Lovejoy) (November 1, 2008). "Book note: Presidential idolatry is "Bad for Democracy"". Twin Cities Daily Planet. Retrieved 2009-10-12.
  12. ↑ Alexander Cockburn (February 9, 2009). "Hail Caesar! Beat the Devil". The Nation (published online January 22, 2009). Retrieved 2009-10-12.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.