Tentative conclusions on democracy & governance
-
Presidential Preventative Wars and Democracy
I just finished watching Robert Schlesinger promoting his book on the Daily Show and I happened across the following op-ed by his father, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. I found it both beautiful and timely, so I figured that it might be worth sharing here. Let me know what you think.
“There is no more dangerous thing for a democracy than a foreign policy based on presidential preventive war.” -Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
[Article on WashingtonPost.com]
Bush’s Thousand Days
By Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
Monday, April 24, 2006; Page A17The Hundred Days is indelibly associated with Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Thousand Days with John F. Kennedy. But as of this week, a thousand days remain of President Bush’s last term — days filled with ominous preparations for and dark rumors of a preventive war against Iran.
The issue of preventive war as a presidential prerogative is hardly new. In February 1848 Rep. Abraham Lincoln explained his opposition to the Mexican War: “Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure [emphasis added]. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.’
3 responses to to “Presidential Preventative Wars and Democracy”
-
We hear Democrats rattling the same saber now.
Insofar as sticks will be the next president’s dominant foreign policy tool, (s)he will benefit from Bush’s presidential preventive war. It not only establishes Americans’ will to use violence; it establishes their will (insanity?) to incur costs that far outweigh the gains of such excursions.
I prefer carrots.
-
I think Jack makes a valid point, but I think it is a stretch to say that the rhetoric of the Democratic candidates on Iran are the same as either Bush or McCain.
A major question remains. Much of this president’s foreign policy recklessness was enabled by an enfeebled Congress, or one at least unwilling to offer a reasonable check on the Executive Branch. Whether that is due to 9/11 “changing everything” or an essentially 1-party executive-legislative union is an important discussion.
If this election plays out as it looked a few months ago, we may again be faced with that same problem but with the other party. Time will tell to see if the reigns of power in the hands of the other party will lead to such wanton disregard by the legislature to exercise their constitutional duty against a president of the same ilk. Likewise, it will be interesting to see that if the extremely different view of the world expressed by the Democratic candidates will translate to extremely different execution considering the empowered executive office they may occupy.
Lest we forget, there are three other “players” to the American political arena. In my opinion, the judiciary has executed their role relatively well. However, much of the blame for the past 8 years rests on the backs of the American people and the media. Now that the 9/11 scales seem to have partially fallen from our eyes, will we the people be more proactive? Moreover, will the media, the people’s eyes, endeavor to show more clearly the events of the day and question the words of the demi-king that is the American presidency?
I hope so, but I fear not.
-
Christopher N. May 2nd, 2008 at 08:41
I enjoyed Daniel’s response, but I disagree with the last paragraph. The whole problem with presidential wars is that it erodes the ability of the three other “players” to check the executive in the American political arena. The more Congress allows “police action” and other tricks to avoid getting proper authorization for engaging in war, especially preventative war, the more the horizontal democratic constraints erode, and the closer U.S. moves to a more delegative type of democracy, with only vertical ties left to the executive.
Leave a reply
-
Recent Comments