Redstate

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in The White House — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

It's time for another "George W. Bush is acting like a monarch instead of acting like a President" column.

The latest effort--or at least one of them--comes from Adam Cohen, who is determined to take policy differences and transform them into evidence of the incipient tyranny that threatens us all. Sometimes, I think that as dismal as the Bush Administration's approval ratings are, the Administration feels that it can get by so long as its political opponents overreach. Adam Cohen helps foster this thought and perhaps even gives comfort to the very Administration he seeks to vex.

It is most fascinating to watch and read. Most fascinating indeed. In any event, let's consider Cohen's column and its highlights.

There is a whole lot more under the fold. Read on . . .

The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesn't have the power to do it. "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war," he said at a recent press conference. "I think they ought to be funding the troops." He added magnanimously: "I'm certainly interested in their opinion."

The quoted language hardly shows that President Bush believes that "Congress doesn't have the power" to "limit or end the war." It shows, rather, that he doesn't "think Congress ought to be running the war." Merely stating that one does not believe that Congress ought to micromanage the war or bring it to a (yes, I shall use the word) precipitous end does not mean that one believes Congress does not have the power to bring the war to an end.

Indeed, it has been conceded from the outset that Congress has the power to bring the war to an end by stopping all funding. And if Adam Cohen had been paying attention, he might have noticed that ever since the beginning of the 110th Congress, Republicans--including those found in the Bush Administration--have been daring Democrats to bring an end to the war by stopping all funding if they believe so strongly that the war and America's continued presence in Iraq is a mistake. Of course, Republicans--including those found in the Bush Administration--have also been stating that it would be a mistake to follow this course. Again: This is not the same as saying that Congress doesn't have the power to bring the war to an end. And Cohen's quoted language does nothing to demonstrate that President Bush is seeking to deny Congress powers that it has.

Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution's framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called "the foetus of monarchy."

The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe's history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that "absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal."

Many critics of the Iraq war are reluctant to suggest that President Bush went into it in anything but good faith. But James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. "In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed," he warned. "It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle."

All of this is very interesting. It is also utterly and completely beside the point. Again, Cohen has confused a policy disagreement (concerning the shape of policy regarding the continued American troop presence in Iraq) with a Constitutional crisis (whether Congress has a role in warmaking). He started this entire column by taking a couple of quotes from President Bush and imbuing them with a meaning that they did not have. And that was enough for him to go off on his "King George" kick.

Of course, if one really wishes to bandy about statements from the Founders concerning the scope of Presidential power, I suppose that we could also turn to Hamilton in Federalist No. 70:

THERE is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous Executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well-wishers to this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome.

There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.

We do not, of course, wish to grant the President the "formidable title of Dictator." And we are not. Since the issue at hand is best described as a policy difference between the Bush Administration and Congress over the nature of our presence in Iraq, it would do better to discuss the particulars of that policy, rather than to rhetorically gallivant along with dire warnings about the incipient fascism that supposedly is just around the corner.

The Constitution does make the president "commander in chief," a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be "nothing more" than "first general and admiral," responsible for "command and direction" of military forces.

What precisely is this "sweeping meaning" suggested by President Bush concerning the title "commander in chief"? Cohen does not say. And he does not want to. He is content that you should just imagine the worst. Demagogues usually are.

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush's assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress's control over spending as "the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."

When did President Bush demand "a blank check"? Cohen does not say. And he does not want to. He is content that you should just imagine the worst. Demagogues usually are. And again, if Cohen had been paying attention, he would have noted that not only have the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans conceded Congress's power of the purse--and its commensurate ability to cut off spending regarding the war--but they have dared the Democrats to exercise that power to the full and actually cut off all spending. That dare, of course, was not premised on a power the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans did not believe Congress possessed. Quite the contrary. But don't tell that to Adam Cohen. It would ruin his rant and he wouldn't be happy about that.

As opinion turns more decisively against the war, the administration is becoming ever more dismissive of Congress's role. Last week, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman brusquely turned away Senator Hillary Clinton's questions about how the Pentagon intended to plan for withdrawal from Iraq. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq," he wrote. Mr. Edelman's response showed contempt not merely for Congress, but for the system of government the founders carefully created.

Eh . . . no, it didn't. But nice try.

Or perhaps not. This whole article was spawned from a dramatic and overpowering desire on the part of Adam Cohen to miss the point at Every. Single. Crucial. Opportunity. Not that any of this matters to Cohen. Facts only make a difference when one wishes to make a reasoned argument and to engage in a serious colloquy with others. Facts don't matter when one simply desires--as Cohen does--to rhetorically wave the bloody shirt.

For that latter activity, prime space in one of the most consequential newspapers in America will suffice.