A History of Conflicts Between Congress and Presidents

Strange as it may seem today, the Founding Fathers, in the initial work on a Constitution for the new country offered George Washington the crown to become King of the U.S. He turned it down. What happened then was the development of a separation of powers. No longer would this nation be ruled by a despot, no matter how benevolent he might be. Each branch of the government now had its own rights and responsibilities, and one was not to be subservient to the other.

Of course, in the late eighteenth century there was barely a two-=party system, and those who framed the Constitution never considered that Congress and the Presidency would be controlled by two different parties. Except in dire times- World War II and the current crisis, the idea of "bi-partisanship" was merely a political issue. Congress, of course, was given the power to override a presidential veto, but while, in fact, that occurs from time to time, except during the massive one-party dominance (in the 1930's with FDR, and again in 1964 with LBJ) chances of an opposition party mustering enough votes to override Presidential veto were slim.

The more recent conflicts are really all political. Reagan inherited a basic mistrust of the Executive branch, stemming from the misdeeds of Nixon, and the ineptness of Ford and Carter. One has to go back to the Nixon years to see how the Executive branch made every attempt to obfuscate the activities of its minions. Watergate was not merely a cover-up for a clandestine spying on the Democratic party. It was, in fact, the President asserting that he had the power to tell or to hide what his staff was doing. It was no business of the Congress, or the Nation, until he decided it was. In many ways, Nixon was a blustering autocrat, attempting to re-write the separation of powers into a dominance by a "strong" President.

It always provides a conflict when there is a strong, will-full President with his opwn agenda which may well run counter to that of the elected members of Congress. The U.S. President, not the Senators or Representatives, are seen as the real "American government". For the most part, the President is more visible and more demanding of the time given to his views, both in the media, as well as by his supporters in Congress.

Would the Founding Fathers have been pleased? Chances are, they would not, since they were not the sort of modern politicians that the strong two-party system (and now the mass media) has created. The Founding Fathers were both more conservative in their views, and more reticent in their attempts to create a cult of personality. George Washington was the obvious choice to become the nation's first president, because he had accomplished much to free the Colonies from Britain. But, he did not have a warm "personality". Incidentally, there are many historians who claim that Lincoln would never have been elected, had there been television and mass media. Unlike the way he is often portrayed, he did not have a deep, mellifluous voice.

The founding fathers never counted on Presidents being elected by being popular, rather than a popular referendum on their policies. Reagan, a former actor, had a personality that was warm, and a policy- anti-Communism - that most people agreed with. The Founding Fathers saw the Presidency as occupied by a dedicated professional. Instead, in Reagan's case, we got a fine public speaker, whose every word was scripted for him.

The Iran-Contra Affair seemed, to the average citizen, to be blown well out of proportion. What, after all, was the significance of those Banana republics in Central America? And, what if the government (or rather, the Presidency) did whatever it could to subvert the Iranians. Remember, the Iranians waited until Reagan was sworn in, before releasing the American hostages in Tehran! In some respects, the activities of some Presidents regarding foreign affairs or foreign relations seem to not upset the citizens. They, for the most part, know little or nothing about what is going on I the rest of the world. They consider their President to be the leader of the Free World (something the Founding Fathers surely never considered).

Reagan always had the sympathies of the American people, and, after he had been shot, they clustered around him even more, which more or less upset that balance of power: It was Reagan's trickle-down economic ideas, and Reagan's attempt to interfere with politics in Central America as well as the Near East, that got the headlines. Yet, Reagan manged to pull in a lot of Republican Senators and Representatives into Congress, and for that they were beholden to him. Still, they had to assert their own powers, and the Iran-Contra affair derailed them from that goal.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was a consu8mmate politician, with little or no experience in foreign affairs (like Reagan). He rode in on the coattails of his charm and public persona, easily outdistancing the hapless Dan Quayle It was only when the Republicans had to find some reason to show the public that Bill Clinton was the "Emperor's New Clothes"- that underneath that charm he had little of a "Presidential" stature, that the Monica Lewinsky scandal or Whitewater got as much attention as it did. What was the reason for this imbroglio? Surely, other presidents had had affairs. JFK's were somehow kept secret, even though many in the media "knew" about them, but didn't write a word.

Clinton lied under oath. Nobody denies that, not even Clinton himself. But, if one were a Founding Father today, what would he have made about all the fuss? In part, he would say "You voted for him., You're stuck with him until the end of his term!" He would have asked whether the majority of people- not their representatives in Congress or the conservative opponents on the Supreme Court, would have gone as far as the media and Congress did. On the other hand, none of the Founding Fathers who framed a Constitution for 13 colonies could possibly have envisioned a nation of some 260 million people, stretching fro one ocean to the next. Even though the Constitution is so solidly grounded, and in some cases, flexible, no framer of the Constitution could have foreseen the problems of America's "melting pot" constituency. And, what's more, Benjamin Franklin's Saturday Evening Post, and some local newspapers would never have been read by more than a few thousand people, at best. Now, there are mass media. Reporters and editors and anchor people have one goal: an exclusive! Uncovering or unearthing something devious that would boost ratings. Everyone now wants a "Deep Throat", no matter who is President.
Presidents are imperfect people, for the most part. So are Senators, Congressmen, and certainly Supreme Court Justices. For the most part, they are selected and then elected more based on their personalities, and how well they come across in TV and radio ads, than in what they truly think and feel. If the Founding Fathers had wanted someone above (legal) reproach, they would have created a royal house. Even Washington was smart enough to realize that the American colonists would not swap one king for another. And s, the Presidency was born.

However, in modern times, the reason why people want to become President of the U.S. has less to do with wanting to serve the nation, than it has to do with gaining enormous, unparalleled power. Most of the people who run for, and gain the Presidency, are not Constitutional scholars. To them, the idea of Separation of Powers does not seem to exist. They realize they have to rely on Congress for some things, but at the same time they consider themselves to be the "leader of the country". Not Congress, not the Judiciary, but the Presidency is in charge. A perfect example of the arrogance of the Executive branch came after Reagan was shot. Alexander Haig, Secretary of State at the time, pronounced that he was "in charge".

With so many in Congress having feared the lack of intelligence of George W. Bush, surely there was going to be a contentious fight for supremacy. However, September 11 changed all that, for the moment. There is grudging bipartisanship for the moment. But, as soon as Busch continues to urge new tax cuts, especially for big business and the "fat cats", and as soon as more economic figures show a drastic downturn, regardless of Sept. 11, then there will be increasing Congress-Executive arguments. The elections of 2002 will give us a better indication .