.jpg) | |
| Author | Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Houghton Mifflin |
Publication date | 1973, 1989, 2004 |
| Publication place | United States |
| Pages | 505 in 1973; 589 in 2004 |
| ISBN | 978-0-395-17713-6 |
| OCLC | 704887 |
The Imperial Presidency is a work by historianArthur M. Schlesinger Jr. Published in 1973 byHoughton Mifflin, the book was reissued in 1989 with a 79-page epilogue and then re-released by Houghton Mifflin in 2004 in aMariner Books paperback edition that included a new 16-page introduction. A one-volume work, it recounts and analyzes the history of thepresidency of the United States from the office's conception as this emerged from the Constitutional Convention and then developed through the latter half of the 20th century, with special attention to aspects ofwar powers. Schlesinger's book popularized the termimperial presidency[1] and 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".[2]
Schlesinger began writingThe Imperial Presidency in March, 1973, shortly afterRichard Nixon'sreelection as president and the escalation of theWatergate scandal. Schlesinger had intended the book to examine how war-making power had been extended unofficially by the office of the president; in his journal, he reflected that "Watergate came along to provide the climax and, I trust, denouement." The rapidly written book was published byThanksgiving.[1] Schlesinger, who had been a vocal advocate for a strong, activist executive being essential to democracy, acknowledges inThe Imperial Presidency that expansions of presidential power had led to dangerous abuse of the office.[3]
The reissue in 2004 included a new introduction in which Schlesinger excoriatedGeorge W. Bush as an imperial president, calling the2003 invasion of Iraq "the needless war".[1]
The Imperial Presidency examines changes in the extent of executive power, particularly in the context of war, from the establishment of the United States through thepresidency of Richard Nixon. It discusses how the applications of the Constitutional authority to declare war given to Congress and the Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy and act ascommander-in-chief given to the president have evolved since the government's inception, creating a dangerous imbalance in theseparation of powers.
The book argues that throughout US history, the office of the president gradually appropriated authority exceeding that which was granted to the presidency by the Constitution, resulting in a concurrent erosion in congressional authority.The Imperial Presidency identifies a pattern of presidents during critical points in history setting policies and taking actions that were arguably the province of Congress, to be followed by a return to "normalcy" when the crisis had passed. Schlesinger presentsJames K. Polk's deployment of troops to the disputed area between Texas and Mexico, leading to theMexican–American War, as the first example of a president exploiting the ambiguity of war-making powers in the Constitution. Another example he gives isAbraham Lincoln and his executive orders and actions during theAmerican Civil War, such as thesuspension of habeas corpus.
The book argues that the pattern of expansion and reversion was disrupted byWorld War II. The state of world affairs in its wake engendered a condition of "perpetual crisis", a condition that presidents relied upon to justify extendingexecutive privilege largely unabated. Most ofThe Imperial Presidency addresses events after World War II. Schlesinger writes:
...by the 1970s the American President had become on issues of war and peace the most absolute monarch (with the possible exception ofMao Tse-tung of China) among the great powers of the world.[4]: XXVII
The book criticizes Nixon extensively, but concludes that the Nixon administration was "not an aberration but a culmination" of the trend toward an imperial presidency.[4]: 417 As Congress permitted its authority to be diminished in deference to the presidents, it encouraged the presidents to extend their imperial powers in the domestic sphere as well.
The final third of the book presents prescriptions for potential reforms of the presidency.
A review inThe Baltimore Sun byStuart Rochester called the book "brilliant, timely", noting that it clearly illustrates Schlesinger's personal conviction of the need for a strong presidency.[5] Historian Laura Kalman wrote that the book "fares less well as scholarship than activism, history than polemic", but calls it a "beautifully written page-turner". She also observes that Schlesinger's preferences for specific presidents colors his evaluations of their policies and actions.[1]
ReviewerRichard J. Walton admired Schlesinger's examination of the justification for presidents exceeding the letter of theConstitution, but wrote that the haste with which the book was written was obvious and that some of the language, particularly in regards to Nixon, could be considered overly polemic.[6]
Christopher Lehmann-Haupt observed thatThe Imperial Presidency read like two overlapping books: one that presents a compelling history of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of the government, and one that prescribes approaches for dealing with the Watergate crisis. Lehmann-Haupt concludes, "what he has ended up with is hybrid — not completely history and not quite a polemic."[7]
Harry McPherson wrote that despite occasional bias,The Imperial Presidency is "an invaluable guide to those who wish to see, in the maelstrom of recent events, the outlines of a legitimate Presidency".[8]
InThe New York Times,Garry Wills argued thatThe Imperial Presidency was unable to deal with the problem that Nixon, like previous presidents, was fulfilling the demands of the general populace, and that systematic changes would not prevent a president from catering to the public.[9]
An article inPresidential Studies Quarterly, 25 years later, noted thatThe Imperial Presidency "has provided political discourse with a common vocabulary and a common understanding" and called it "a classic in the field".[10]