Freedom from Blog

Don't call it a comeback . . . .

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Not Outrage But At Least in the Right Direction

George F. Will in today's Post:

Particularly in time of war or the threat of it, government needs concentrated decisiveness -- a capacity for swift and nimble action that legislatures normally cannot manage. But the inescapable corollary of this need is the danger of arbitrary power.

Modern American conservatism grew in reaction against the New Deal's creation of the regulatory state, and the enlargement of the executive branch power that such a state entails. The intellectual vigor of conservatism was quickened by reaction against the Great Society and the aggrandizement of the modern presidency by Lyndon Johnson, whose aspiration was to complete the project begun by Franklin Roosevelt.

Because of what Alexander Hamilton praised as "energy in the executive," which often drives the growth of government, for years many conservatives were advocates of congressional supremacy. There were, they said, reasons why the Founders, having waged a revolutionary war against overbearing executive power, gave the legislative branch pride of place in Article I of the Constitution.

One reason was that Congress's cumbersomeness, which is a function of its fractiousness, is a virtue because it makes the government slow and difficult to move. But conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections.

On the assumption that Congress or a court would have been cooperative in September 2001, and that the cooperation could have kept necessary actions clearly lawful without conferring any benefit on the nation's enemies, the president's decision to authorize the NSA's surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake. Perhaps one caused by this administration's almost metabolic urge to keep Congress unnecessarily distant and hence disgruntled.

Charles de Gaulle, a profound conservative, said of another such, Otto von Bismarck -- de Gaulle was thinking of Bismarck not pressing his advantage in 1870 in the Franco-Prussian War -- that genius sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. In peace and in war, but especially in the latter, presidents have pressed their institutional advantages to expand their powers to act without Congress. This president might look for occasions to stop pressing.


I'm interested that, despite the wind-up, Will concludes wimpily that "the president's decision to authorize the NSA's surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake." OK, but was the "mistake" not seeking "the complicity" of a co-equal branch, or the exercise of arbitrary power? And is that just a "mistake"?

1 Comments:

At 9:50 AM, Blogger tenaciousmcd said...

I had been awaiting a Will column on this issue since he's made such a big point about congressional supremacy in past writing, especially under Clinton, who Will wanted to impeach for holding that congressional oversight was only needed in the case of full penetration. Now that's surveillance Congress could get behind!

Hard to reconcile all that principled hoo-ha with the behavior of Nixon or Reagan, so it was always B.S., and now we get Georgie's weak-kneed "please, Daddy, don't" lickspittling to W. At least it's not the Kristol argument in the WaPo that the President is our GOD (or is it YHWH?), dammit. Much has been made of Kristol and the neocons' Straussianism, but this is pure Carl Schmitt: the executive has unlimited emergency powers to determine "the enemy" and act decisively against him without parliament. Maybe Kristol should write a Safire-style "talking to dead people" column and ask Hindenberg how that one turned out.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home