The Rise of the 'Imperial Presidency' in the 1960s and 1970s: Analyzing the Factors Behind Its Ascendancy
TITLE
Assess the reasons for the rise of the ‘imperial presidency’ in the 1960s and 1970s.
ESSAY
The rise of the 'imperial presidency' in the 1960s and 1970s was a complex phenomenon that can be attributed to a combination of factors including personalities, ambitions, and increasing pressures from foreign policy. The term 'imperial presidency' was popularized by historian Arthur Schlesinger in his 1973 study that highlighted the expansion of presidential powers beyond what the Constitution strictly allowed.
One key factor contributing to the imperial presidency was the trend in the 1950s for foreign policy actions to be taken without formal congressional consultation and approval. This trend was influenced by the precedents set by the New Deal, the emergency powers exercised during World War II, and the demands of the Cold War and nuclear age. The Cuban Missile Crisis exemplified the need for swift and decisive action by the president in the realm of foreign policy, leading to a perceived necessity for independent and unilateral presidential action.
Presidents such as Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon further solidified the imperial presidency through their actions. Johnson's deployment of troops in the Dominican Republic without Congressional approval and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution granting him broad authority in Vietnam demonstrated the extent to which presidents could act unilaterally in matters of foreign policy. Nixon similarly pursued actions in Cambodia and Laos without Congressional approval, further highlighting the unchecked powers of the executive branch in foreign affairs.
The shift towards an imperial presidency also had repercussions on domestic policy, as presidents began to bypass Congress and other branches of government in making crucial decisions. Nixon's use of executive power in economic policy, his efforts to undermine Congressional measures, and the Watergate scandal all underscored the dangers of unchecked executive authority in domestic affairs.
The personalities of the presidents themselves played a role in the rise of the imperial presidency, with Kennedy's establishment of a 'court,' Johnson's autocratic manner, and Nixon's aversion to scrutiny and criticism contributing to the development of a presidency centered around unilateral decision-making and concentration of power in the hands of the executive.
In conclusion, the rise of the imperial presidency in the 1960s and 1970s was a multifaceted phenomenon driven by a combination of historical precedents, foreign policy pressures, presidential personalities, and changing media landscapes. The unchecked expansion of presidential powers during this period highlighted the potential dangers of an overly powerful executive branch and the importance of maintaining a system of checks and balances to safeguard democratic principles.
SUBJECT
HISTORY
PAPER
A LEVEL
NOTES
Assess the reasons for the rise of the 'imperial presidency' in the 1960s and 1970s.
Factors might include personalities, ambitions and increasing pressure from foreign policy. The idea that an imperial presidency developed, with the president assuming more powers than the constitution strictly allowed derived from a 1973 study of the presidents’ powers by the historian, Arthur Schlesinger. The manifestation in the 1960s and 1970s was directly linked to foreign policy.
There had been a trend in the 1950s for foreign policy actions to be taken without formal congressional consultation and approval. The reasons can be traced back to the precedents set by the New Deal, which saw the economic problems as so severe that a great expansion of federal power was needed, followed by the unprecedented emergency powers exercised in World War Ⅱ, the pressures of the nuclear age, and the threats of the Cold War, all of which led Congress to accept that presidents needed to pursue independent and unilateral action. The Cuban Missile Crisis underlined this. Johnson acted without Congressional approval by sending troops into the Dominican Republic and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave him authority to escalate the conflict in Vietnam, until revoked in 1971. Nixon did not have congressional approval for the war in Cambodia, and the bombing of Laos was not revealed to Congress. Actions in Thailand and Ethiopia were not shared with Congress. Thus, the president came to wield ‘imperial powers’ because of the nature of world events and the demands of foreign policy. This had a knock-on effect on domestic policy being conducted without the control and scrutiny of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the press, which undermined controls of the executive. Nixon pursued economic policies on his own initiative and bypassed Congressional measures by denying funds. Nixon used security forces to investigate potential opposition, culminating in Watergate, and it has been argued that the presidency shifted towards a powerful figure employing staff personally loyal outside of the regular administration.
With the development of covert operations and a cult of secrecy justified by a fear that the US was under attack and could not afford transparency or congressional control or full media scrutiny, the Cold War may bear some responsibility. However, some may feel that the development of executive power in two world wars and the pressure from the extreme economic conditions of the slump might have set a dangerous precedent. Also, the personalities of the presidents might offer explanations with the development of a ‘court’ under Kennedy and with Johnson’s autocratic manner and Nixon’s dislike of scrutiny and criticism.
The development of an inflated White House staff, which the founders of the constitution did not anticipate, and the increased threat of aggressive and well-informed media, may be seen as encouraging an inward-looking presidential style in which unilateral decision-making was the norm.