The Precedent of an American President
This story was first published in AT EASE! Veterans Magazine Spring 2022.
Written by: Shannon Robinson
Washington at Constitutional Convention of 1787, signing of U.S. Constitution. (1856)
Painting by: Junius Brutus Stearns - Public Domain
"The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
When we think of the qualities an elected President should have, we often have differing opinions on what those characteristics should be.
Since our Republic-based government was designed, citizens have been vocal and opinionated about their choice of leader. We are just as outspoken as ever, but the divide between Presidential supporters and critics is seemingly becoming deeper and more rigid.
So, instead of taking the easy route and spouting empty opinions like many followers do in today’s media-driven world, we should take a hard look at what the Executive office was designed to do to help us determine who deserves its seat.
The Pew Research Center conducted a poll in 2018 to see how Americans felt about their democracy. About one third of polled members said that “’who the president is’ makes a big difference in their lives,” affecting not only diplomacy and policy, but also the mood of the country. At the same time, 76% agreed that “it would be ‘too risky’ to give presidents more power to deal directly with the nation’s problems.” Those same opinions aren’t too different from what the Founding Fathers argued about when writing the Constitution and building our government.
As they drafted the Constitution, Federalists were in favor of a Presidential head. They pointed out the need for an executive to enforce domestic and foreign policy, citing the checks and balances system as the way to ensure the leader did not get too power hungry. Accountable in every way, he could simply be reelected if he did not meet the needs of the nation or impeached if he did any wrong. His power would be limited, but impactful.
The Antifederalists understandably feared a new monarchy developing in the United States. They thought it would be all too easy for the President to abuse his power and saw loopholes in the Constitution for the position to be corrupted. Patrick Henry implored the Convention in 1788 to consider that if the “American chief, be a man of ambition, and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute.” He believed that with an unchecked President, we were setting ourselves up for a new, despotic King.
These two groups argued and fought to discern what our Commander in Chief should look like—a leader, who guides with wisdom in policy, but has a restrained place amongst the lawmakers and judges; he has more power than a figurehead, but less threatening strength than a king.
However, Henry pointed out something else in his address that resonated with me. He describes how fundamentally flawed it is if a functional government is based on “the supposition that (y)our American Governors shall be honest.” Blind faith in this assumption inevitably leads to “the consequent loss of liberty.”
We must always question and push for truth behind our leaders’ actions. We must disregard the novelty of media hype and avoid the trap of blind faith. Because even if we have ultimate trust in our Commander in Chief, it is foolish to assume he always acts altruistically and transparently.
I encourage you, reader, in a world so often crowded with sensational noise, to put purpose behind your opinions. Then, take the bold steps forward in action to be the same kind of leader you wish to see in your President. It is then that we begin to shift the fabric of our society bit by bit to shape its legacy as our forefathers intended.
* Historical information was researched from the documents provided at the University of Wisconsin—Madison’s Center for the Study of the American Constitution.