SHORT PAPER #3THE MODERN PRESIDENCY The concept of the Modern Presidency is a term subject to much debate.

Scholars such as Fred Greenstein, David Nichols, Sidney Milkis and Michael Nelson have all argued strongly contrasting viewpoints on what constitutes a modern President, and which figure serves as the father of the Modern Presidency. Whilst Milkis and Nelson contend that the Office of President became modernized at the beginning of the 20th century under Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909), Nichols argues that the entire concept is nothing more than a myth. This paper aims to compare scholarly opinion on the matter and ultimately reach a conclusion regarding the true origins of the concept, and whether it is accurate. The original idea of the Modern Presidency can be attributed to Fred Greenstein, who argues that the concept of was born during the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, during the years of 1933-1945. Specifically, he cites four primary pillars that signified the change in Presidential philosophy. In The New American Political System, Greenstein proposes that FDR and the 7 Presidents that followed him became more active in evaluating legislative enactments, giving more consideration to the notion of a Presidential veto.1 The idea of the President exercising more power, according to Greenstein, was made possible through an increase of statutes, Supreme Court rulings, and informal precedents.2 These allowed the President to issue Executive Orders, giving him the ability to issue policies without the need for formal Congressional ratification. But what allowed for this drastic change in Presidential tendencies so clearly after Hoover? According to Greenstein, Roosevelts establishment of the Executive Office of the President in 1939 paved the way for a rise in Presidential bureaucracy, giving the Commander-in-Chief a select cabinet of advisors separate from Congress who would assist in directing his policies and pursuits.3 Greenstein highlights that under this system the President could loan in advisors from various departments to assist him in specific areas. This cabinet system, which would become (and continues to be) instrumental and invaluable to the American political system, enabled the President to exercise stronger veto power and hold a stronger Executive position against Congress without appearing to usurp power, something which the Framers had understandably feared. The transparency that a publicly viewable Cabinet provided created an unprecedented amount of public trust in the President, a belief that he was making informed decisions in the name of the people; and if need be, was justifiably acting without the jurisdiction of Congress. Greenstein further adds that another characteristic of the Modern Presidency was directly induced by a major change in the quantity and quality of public attention to incumbents, with the notion that the President was to be a symbol of reassurance for the people. Thus, when considering this point, it is viable and acceptable to argue that the Modern Presidency did indeed have roots in Presidencies predating that of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Specifically, Sidney Milkis and David Nelson contend that FDRs fifth cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, was the first President to acknowledge that he was, by his position, a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do all he could for the people.4 This transparency and sense of commitment would be echoed by future Presidents, most
1 2 3 4

Greenstein, Fred, The New American Political System, Washington DC (1979), p. 45 Greenstein, ibid. Ibid.

Milkis, Sidney & Nelson, David, The American Presidency: Origins and Development 1776-2011, Washington DC (2012), p. 220

notably FDR and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Moreover, Milkis and Nelson highlight a quote of Roosevelt in which he claims it was not only his right but also his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded, unless action was forbidden by the constitution or by the laws.5 That Roosevelt mentioned it his obligation to stop at action forbidden by the constitution or by the laws, but not specifically by Congress, accentuates Greensteins point that a main characteristic of the Modern Presidency is the incumbents tendency to act, if they so require, without the consultation of Congress. And, further dispelling Greensteins notion that the modern presidency started with FDR, Milkis and Nelson believe that Roosevelts philosophy was inspired by Alexander Hamilton, who held office during the late 18th century. In a philosophy tentatively named Pacifius, Hamilton had believed that the general doctrine of the American constitution is that the executive power of the nation is vested in the President, and subject only to the exceptions and qualifications which are expressed in the instrument.6 But whilst Milkis and Nelson argue that Teddy Roosevelt can be considered the pioneer of the modern presidency for the reasons issued above, acting as the father of the rhetorical Presidential era, they ultimately conclude that by the end of his term, despite the Offices increased prominence amongst the American public, it was still constrained by a powerful if no longer dominant Congress.7 If applying Greensteins parameters for the Modern Presidency, that Roosevelt still experienced clashes and restrictions with Congress suggests that the era had not truly started. Interestingly, in what is perhaps an amalgamation of the two aforementioned schools of thought, David Nichols believes that the entire concept of the Modern Presidency is in fact a myth, extinguishing not only the possibility of it emerging at a specific point but also the fact that it exists at all. Whilst he does acknowledge that FDR and consequently Eisenhower, did usher in a new style of Presidency, he challenges the notion that they paved the way for the 5 Presidents that followed them, as Greenstein believed.8 Nichols argues that John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon, all in their own way rejected the model left by Eisenhower; moreover, he adds that Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter rejected both the Eisenhower and the Roosevelt models entirely9 . Nichols feels that the unprecedented changes that Ike and FDR made were not because of the establishment of the Executive Office of the President, nor the transformation of the constitutional office of the Presidency. More, it was down to broad changes in the character of government and society. Because of the nature of the global crises that threatened to engulf the FDR and Eisenhower Presidencies (WWII and the Cold War), Nichols felt that at certain times more was expected of the national government, with the President becoming the most visible symbol of that government.10 Ultimately Nichols feels that the modern Presidency is nothing more than a myth, because characteristics of such a concept have surfaced both in the past and in the present day with no direct correlation to the time of the Presidency; more accurately, they have surfaced in alignment with the current events of the time.
5 6 7 8 9

Ibid., p. 221 Ibid., p 222 Ibid., p 258 Nichols, David K., The Myth of the Modern Presidency, University Park, PA (1994), p. 5 Ibid., p. 2 Ibid., p. 6

10

In conclusion, I feel a case can strongly be made for a clear starting point of modern Presidencies. Whilst individuals such as Hamilton and Theodore Roosevelt echoed characteristics of a modern presidency, they still faced obstacles with and were often undermined by Congress. As Greenstein argues, the Presidential terms of FDR onwards mark a clear change in Presidential authority, attitude and execution, marking the birth of a new, modern Presidency. Such a style of Presidency has since defined America and continues to be the dominant method of service. Unlike Greenstein though, I believe that the modern presidency was not primarily brought about by the Presidents actions directly. Instead, I feel that the purpose and role of 20th century Presidencies, due to the unparalleled international conflicts such as the Second World War and Cold War, was significantly different to anything before it. The global nature of the position inherently gave, and required, the President more individual power, particularly in regards to military action. Thus, we indeed argue that the presidency did transform in the 20th century, and that both of the Roosevelts are considered chief proponents of this, primarily Franklin D. Roosevelt. Crucially though, we must consider and ultimately accept Nichols determination that the events of the time globalised the Office of President, and consequently the manner in which the modern Presidency was and is conducted.