The Presidency, Democratic Reform, and Constitutional Change

Abstract

Recent events have rendered the politics and governance of the American presidency a source of scorn and derision. While the nation seeks to come to terms with problems of the most serious magnitude in domestic and foreign affairs, the incumbent of the nation's highest office is crippled by a byzantine arms scandal. Moreover, the candidacy of the opposition's “front-runner” for the 1988 presidential nomination has been derailed by a scandal sufficiently salacious to displace as the focus of the media's attention the first week of congressional hearings that are investigating the Iran-Contra affair.These developments represent an extraordinarily sharp shift in perceptions about the state of the presidency and American politics. Until the Iran-Contra revelations, many statesmen and scholars credited the Reagan Administration with suspending the paralysis that seemed to grip the nation during the post-Watergate years. For example, a survey of political scientists carried out by theNational Journalin 1985 revealed that even many scholars who opposed Reagan's policies granted that the president had shown impressive leadership ability in dominating the government's agenda and mastering the Congress (National Journal, April 6, 1985, 743–747). Yet the Iran-Contra affair has apparently spoiled the Reagan legacy, belying the prospects for an enduring restoration of the presidency and a renewed sense of national purpose. The rapid demise of Senator Hart's candidacy reaffirmed that presidential politics was once again mired in issues of personality and institutional disarray. Indeed, the extreme scrutiny of Hart's “private” activities highlighted the ongoing lack of commitment in American politics to apublicphilosophy, as well as the absence of institutional strength necessary to cultivate and sustain a coherent sense of national purpose (Brinkley, 1987).