A Critique of Samuel Hendel's "Separation of Powers Revisited in Light of 'Watergate'"

Abstract

SAMUEL HENDEL has written an able statement on the traditional meaning of separation of powers and of the effects of Watergate on this doctrine. He also has presented some interesting proposals for governmental reform. At the same time he recognizes the necessity for strong leadership by the President. The result is a balanced appraisal and a thoughtful one. Hendel correctly assumes that the abuses of presidential power which have occurred in the Nixon Administration need correction. But he has avoided the trap of proposing so strict an implementation of separation of powers as to create an unworkable system that would result in deadlock. Instead he desires an open dialogue between Congress and the President with the public also a part of this discussion. He wants an end to secrecy, except in genuine national security areas; an end to dirty tricks; and a genuine partnership in policy making between the Executive and the Congress. This is sound reasoning and follows in the tradition of the best practice in the United States under strong presidents such as Jefferson, Jackson, the two Roosevelts, Wilson, and Truman. He thus follows in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson's work on Congressional Government with the well-known doctrine that the growth of political parties can be the vehicle for this necessary coordinate relationship in policy making between the President and the Congress.' At the same time Hendel correctly points out the self-defeating nature of the imperial (to use Arthur M. Schlesinger's phrase) 2 concept of the Johnson and Nixon administrations. George Reedy, who was an aide to President Lyndon Johnson, in his book, The Twilight of the Presidency,3 also discusses the isolation of the President and the secrecy surrounding his decisions. Further he discusses the problem of a palace guard keeping from the President the presentation of opposing points of view. Much of this foreshadows the intensification of these problems in the Nixon Administration. Consequently, Hendel, Schlesinger, and Reedy all raise the question of how we can have a more open presidency with greater access not only from Congress but from divergent public opinion. In other words, the institutionalization of access becomes important for congressional committees, congressional leaders, and many types of representatives from the general public. It well can be that this would not weaken but would actually strengthen the presidency by decreasing much of the alienation from politics which many citizens feel. Greater openness could produce an increasing understanding of the nature of public problems and of why particular choices are made. As part of this idea,