Often referenced in constitutional debates, the American presidential system must be examined not only in principle but, more importantly, in its functioning and evolution. Critics argue that for some mysterious reason that has never been explained, this system was particularly suited to the temperament and political customs of Americans, and therefore cannot be adopted by peoples whose historical destinies were set differently. In defense of the system, others highlight its longevity: for one hundred seventy-five years, and despite the Civil War, the same system has structured the life of a people that has transitioned from an agrarian society to one flourishing in the industrial age, with a population that grew from less than 4 million to over 180 million inhabitants. Furthermore, international turmoil has pulled this nation from a comfortable yet illusory isolationism to become one of the two major world powers.
The resilience of a political system amid such profound upheavals is undoubtedly one of its virtues. The American presidential system has managed to navigate numerous obstacles and address many issues that the framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated, largely because it establishes a balance of powers with both rigor and flexibility.
The American system is rigidly defined when it comes to the relationships among its branches. Essentially, the same rules have governed the interactions between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches since George Washington through to John Kennedy. While the president, elected by universal suffrage, enjoys immense prestige and significant authority, he must contend with Congress, which holds the power to vote the budget, ratify treaties and major appointments, declare war, and more. The conflict between these two powers enlivens American political life. The president may veto legislation, yet Congress can override that veto with a two-thirds majority. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds the power to impeach the president, subjecting him to a trial in the Senate. This impeachment process was initiated against President Andrew Johnson in 1868, but it has also been employed against judges and members of President Grant’s cabinet. Conversely, the president has no power to dissolve Congress.
The president may utilize his personal dynamism to lead the regime, but he is never the ultimate arbiter; that role belongs to the Supreme Court, composed of nine justices who are appointed for life. The Court resolves disputes between states and the federal government, between states themselves, or between citizens and the government. It has been aptly remarked that the American system has established a government of magistrates, given the vast powers of the Supreme Court. For instance, it was the Court alone—not the executive or the legislature—that ruled in 1954 to ban racial segregation in public schools, thereby compelling the government to enforce its decision. This not only led President Eisenhower to send troops to Little Rock but also prompted the current administration to act decisively in Mississippi.
Another significant check on presidential authority is the federal structure, as any power not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution belongs to the states. For instance, there is no Department of Education in Washington, D.C.; educational matters are the responsibility of individual states. Such reserved powers would thwart any attempt to establish a totalitarian dictatorship at the national level. The very confederation risked violent fracture, as each state maintains its own militia or guard.
However, the Constitutional restrictions are not the only safeguards against the abuses of personal power. An elected president possesses enough authority—as demonstrated by Truman during the Korean War—to relieve a prestigious general of his command. The internal political structure and the candidate selection system also provide good chances of excluding adventurers or aspiring dictators. A candidate cannot win solely with the backing of one group imposing its will on others—social, religious, ethnic, etc. Neither big business nor labor unions can install a president in the White House who would merely serve as their puppet. While African Americans cannot elect one of their own to the highest office, the notion of a “racist” president is equally unthinkable. Whether Democrat or Republican, a presidential candidate may be more or less intelligent, liberal, or likable; however, he cannot be extreme in any regard. This is due to the interplay of primary elections, political consultations, and conventions, involving too many individuals who contribute to his selection before presenting him to the public for judgment.
Power Transfers
While the Constitution, the federal structure, and the two-party system provide safeguards, the balance of power was defined with enough flexibility to allow the system to adapt to new realities. Under the pressure of unfolding events, some significant transformations have occurred in the main areas previously discussed.
The Great Depression of 1929-1930 and the two World Wars contributed to the enhancement of federal institutional powers at the expense of the states. Roosevelt, during the depression, relied on bank and credit controls alongside countless measures to curb unemployment and stimulate economic activity. It was Washington that subsidized agricultural prices, initiated large public works programs, financed nuclear and space research, expanded a military budget crucial to economic progress, increased taxes, regulated foreign trade to control exports of strategic materials to the Soviet bloc, and involved federal law enforcement (F.B.I.) in a growing number of cases. Each time federal control increased, advocates of state rights protested, similar to the Southern resistance against racial integration.
Moreover, a different transfer of power occurred within the federal institutions themselves. Congress expressed concern over its diminishing prerogatives. The United States’ break from isolationism and its global role have expanded the executive’s responsibilities. After World War I, Congress could choose not to follow Wilson, rejecting both the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations Covenant. A similar stance was no longer possible after World War II. The Cold War demanded swift decisions; Congress was only able to retroactively approve Truman’s decision to intervene in Korea in 1950. Congress made its dissatisfaction with this evolution evident when, shortly after taking office in 1952, Eisenhower had to battle against a proposed constitutional amendment that would have restricted presidential powers in treaty negotiations, an amendment that fell just one vote short of passing. Conversely, the twenty-second amendment, ratified in 1951, limits a president to two consecutive terms to prevent a recurrence of Roosevelt’s presidency, which the far-right considered dictatorial.
The Constitution and traditional political class are not the sole regulators of the political life of the nation. New social forces have emerged, which the government and political parties must reckon with. Captains of industry have given way to managers. Labor unions have taken their place on the national stage, playing a significant political role. Radio and television, along with rapid communications, have helped limit the influence of political “machines,” allowing the president—or his opponents, since broadcasting stations are privately owned—to reach the public directly.
Points of Discussion
In the sketch presented here, the American presidential system, with its advantages and disadvantages, is a subject of ongoing discussions in the United States.
One major discussion revolves around the president’s unique accountability to Congress. As both head of state and government, the president stands alone before Congress. He is accompanied not by ministers but by secretaries (of state, defense, treasury, etc.), who are accountable only to him. The burden of the executive is therefore entirely on his shoulders. This was manageable when the United States housed only a few million inhabitants and aimed for isolation. Is it still feasible today? For various reasons relating to his character, Eisenhower did not personally assume all his responsibilities; he relied on John Foster Dulles for foreign policy and on Sherman Adams (who later resigned following a scandal) for numerous administrative and political tasks. Younger and more dynamic, Kennedy sought to maintain tight control over all issues. Should he not delegate some of his duties? Such delegation, however, would require constitutional reform. In whose favor would such a delegation occur? Two proposals were advanced: one considered the creation of a position for a government secretary, while the other advocated for a new vision of the vice presidency. Neither proposal was adopted, and the president continues to govern alone, surrounded only by advisors of his own choosing who are accountable solely to him. The “Harvard professors” who frequent the White House have faced significant criticism for their influence.
Another topic of discussion is the succession process. Truman famously remarked that “the vice president is the fifth wheel of the wagon,” and he recounted a story: “A man had two sons; one left on a long journey and never returned: the other became vice president of the United States and was heard from no more.” However, such jests no longer reflect reality, as evidenced by Eisenhower’s illnesses: would his death lead to the ascension of someone who neither enjoyed the prestige nor the popular affection of his predecessor? Nixon was chosen to complement a presidential candidate who had no political background and had just left military service, aligning himself with Republican “machine” leaders, representing the conservative wing, and bringing California’s votes. These conditions are insufficient to ensure that a vice president will make a good president upon the chief’s death. Similarly, Kennedy did not choose Lyndon Johnson as his potential successor solely for his qualities as a successor but because of Johnson’s considerable legislative experience and representation of Southern interests. Elected simultaneously with the president, the vice president is typically not selected for his capability to succeed him but rather for purely electoral considerations, contributing votes from the West, South, farmers, African Americans, and so forth. Truman’s case does not guarantee that a vice president will become a competent president.
The frenzy surrounding elections also merits attention. A presidential campaign in the United States creates a climate akin to “an armed civil war.” The stakes are so high, involving significant interests and inciting passionate reactions, that the competition can be fierce and brutal, highlighted by numerous underhanded tactics. One need only read the book by Theodore White, “The Making of a President,” to understand this aspect fully.
Immense sums of money, talent, and energy are expended before a victor even addresses the governance at hand. Certainly, in the spirit of American fair play, the defeated candidate acknowledges the elected victor. However, scars can linger, sometimes difficult to heal. Furthermore, during the heat of the electoral campaign, ideas are proposed with potentially unpredictable consequences, especially regarding foreign policy. White recounts the somewhat troubling circumstances under which Kennedy, in 1960, improvised a speech about the Berlin question. Some of Kennedy’s more reckless statements regarding Cuba led to grave decisions: in response to Kennedy’s accusations, Republican strategists and Nixon pressed the State Department, in the fervor of competition, to impose an embargo on Cuba in October 1960. Kennedy now strives to calm senators and representatives calling for even more vigorous sanctions against the Cuban government.
The conflicts between the president and Congress constitute another crucial issue. During the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, the White House often displayed greater clarity and courage than lawmakers concerned with their re-election. Each year, the battle for foreign aid pitted the legislative branch against the executive, which was always compelled to take the initiative. In September 1962, in a startling move, the House drastically reduced foreign aid appropriations: electoral demagoguery overshadowed the need to provide the government with the necessary resources to conduct its foreign policy. Even on issues directly affecting all voters, Congress sometimes falls short of its responsibilities; for eight years, it has denied the school funding requested by both Eisenhower and Kennedy. More generally, members of the House of Representatives (elected for just two years) frequently prioritize local problems, which garner votes, over significant national or international issues. The Senate, on the other hand, undoubtedly takes its responsibilities more seriously.
Lastly, public opinion plays a significant role. Political parties generally come to life only during electoral periods and most notably for presidential elections. Consequently, public opinion can be invited to intervene directly in major debates. For instance, Roosevelt skillfully utilized his “fireside chats,” broadcast over the radio and widely listened to. His successors, despite having at their disposal an even more powerful medium—television—have been relatively cautious in utilizing it. Nevertheless, public opinion remains decisive in conflicts between the executive and legislative branches or between the government and major social forces (business interests, labor unions, etc.). Kennedy received substantial public support when he compelled the steel industry to withdraw price increases. Similar sentiments have been displayed in racial conflicts, though more cautiously in international matters such as foreign aid programs. Lastly, the referendum is not practiced as in France under the Fifth Republic; within states, certain practical issues of common interest are sometimes put to a referendum as a ballot question during legislative elections. At the federal level, a referendum cannot be used to ratify a constitutional amendment; once adopted by two-thirds of Congress, an amendment takes effect after being ratified by the legislatures or conventions in three-quarters of the states.
These are the main points of discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the American system. However, there is no denying in the United States that the system has proven itself effective, and altering its very functioning could pose dangers. Therefore, the constitutional amendments that have been adopted since the nation’s founding primarily concern the rights of citizens.
Countries, particularly in Latin America, have adopted presidential systems. However, due to their failure to establish a well-defined balance of powers, violations of fundamental principles, or the inability of governments emerging from such regimes to address pressing issues, these nations have often faced instability characterized by harsh dictatorial regimes, frequently yielding sterile governance.