A Liberal Dilemma
| Published date | 01 December 1974 |
| Author | Conrad Joyner |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591297402700403 |
| Date | 01 December 1974 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
593
A
LIBERAL
DILEMMA:
PRESIDENTIAL
POWER
AND
SEPARATION
OF
POWERS
CONRAD
JOYNER
University
of
Arizona
AMUEL
HENDEL
ventures
into
troubled
waters
by
investigating
separation
of
powers
from
the
perspective
of
Watergate.
A
basic
problem
with
Hen-
S
del’s
position
(which
appears
to
be
one
shared
by
many
social
and
economic
liberals)
is
the
notion
that
presidents
and
not
congresses
are
responsible
for
the
great
domestic
reforms
of
this
century.
This
view
of
American
politics
creates
difficulties
because
Hendel
wants
to
retain
executive
initiative
while
curbing
the
excesses
of
power
which
became
especially
evident
in
Johnson’s
and
Nixon’s
im-
perial
presidencies.
It
cannot
be
both
ways.
If
the
Chief
Executive
is
the
major
mover
and
shaker
in
American
government,
he
must
have
power.
By
accepting
Lord
Acton’s
fairly
simple-minded
concept
on
the
corrupting
nature
of
power,
Hendel
is
caught
in
one
of
the
classic
dilemmas
which
confront
both
liberal
scholars
and
practi-
tioners
of
politics
- let
presidents
retain
great
power
for
action
and
the
very
real
possibilities
for
excesses
like
those
of
the
Johnson
and
Nixon
administrations
will
continue
to
haunt
us.
But
Hendel
offers
a
partial
way
out.
He
concludes
with
proposals
for
reform
which
might
reduce
the
possibilities
of
executive
corruption.
I
greatly
admire
Hendel’s
intellectual
honesty.
However,
my
major
concerns
are
not
necessarily
those
which
he
articulates.
The
same
&dquo;fact&dquo;
situations
which
he
uses
to
arrive
at
a
desire
for
reforms
lead
me
to
other,
different
interpretations
and
conclusions.
Apart
from
a
central
quarrel
with
Hendel’s
reform
proposals,
I
feel
that
in
some
instances
his
points
require
elaboration
and/or
different
inter-
pretations.
At
the
outset
it is
well
to
realize
that
separation
of
powers
did
not
leap
from
the
pages
of
Locke
and
Montesquieu
into
the
pens
of
the
framers
of
our
Constitu-
tion.
Some
delegates
to
the
Convention
came
from
colonies
which had
distinct
branches
of
government
with
each
department
designed
to
check
the
other.
This
might
be
considered
a
picky
point.
Yet
Hendel’s
approach
tends
to
be
somewhat
arid
and
divorced
from
the
realities
of
political
life.
His
analyses
of
the
history
of
separation
of
powers,
its
decline,
delegation
of
power
to
the
executive,
and
development
of
a
powerful
central
government
led
by
the
strongest
executive
in
the
western
world
are
somewhat
tedious.
Building
on
these
analyses,
Hendel
rejects
the
conservative
posture
that
the
social
and
economic
policies
of
the
national
government
have
provided
powerful
presidents
opportunities
to
exploit
the
office
for
personal
aggrandizement.
I
find
Hendel’s
rejection
of
the conservative
position
weak.
Conservatives
have
a
point
-
social
programs
lead
to
big
government.
Presidential
power
is
an
outgrowth
of
increased
governmental
involvement
in
all
phases
of
life.
Hendel
offers
another
escape
hatch.
He
attempts
a
distinction
between
the
executive’s
&dquo;public&dquo;
and
&dquo;private&dquo;
power.
In
fact,
he
becomes
downright
poetic
To continue reading
Request your trial