Posted on 09/13/2003 9:27:45 AM PDT by FourPeas
Scholars criticize 'imperial' presidency Saturday, September 13, 2003 By Steven Harmon
ALLENDALE -- Thanks to a pliant Congress and an apathetic public, President George W. Bush has expanded the imperial presidency, perhaps placing the United States in a more vulnerable position than before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. That was the general view of panelists at a conference on the presidency Friday, hosted by Grand Valley State University's Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies. By running roughshod over world opinion in the runup to the Iraq war, Bush now faces world isolation as the occupation has gotten messy, said Polly Diven, a GVSU political science professor. "Sept. 11 provided the president with nationalist support to pursue an imperial presidency, and ... he headed down the unilateralist path," Diven said. "In my mind, the Bush administration is making the United States and the world more dangerous; it's a recipe for more terrorism, not less." The conference, "After September 11: George W. Bush and the 21st Century Presidency," featured a panel of presidential scholars, including University of Louisville professor Gary Gregg, Catholic University professor Mark Rozell, and GVSU professors Diven and Randall Doyle. Roger Porter, a Harvard University professor of business and government and former economics advisor in the Ford, Reagan and first Bush administrations, gave the conference's keynote address at the Gerald R. Ford Museum Friday night. Porter, in an interview with The Press, said the growing power of the presidency is a long-term trend that has "increased the challenges for providing leadership in a system that's very divided." He said "the jury is still out" on whether the imperial approach Bush has taken on the war on terror will prove successful. "How he deals with that is a major remaining challenge," he said. "We are an impatient people who want to see quick victories. But we've got a big job in creating the kind of government we want in Iraq. We'll see how skillfully Bush attacks this." Domestically, Bush has expanded his powers by way of secrecy orders and claims of executive privilege, said Rozell, an editor and contributing writer in a new book, "Considering the Bush Presidency." Some of those expanded powers came before Sept. 11, when Congress failed to successfully challenge Bush when he withheld documents of past administrations. The most well-known instance of the Bush administration's assumption of executive privilege has been Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to divulge even the barest details of his Energy Task Force meetings, Rozell said. But after the terrorist attacks, Bush assumed even more powers, Rozell said. "That's what happens when the president gets the upper hand in a crisis," he said. "Bush pledged to be more open, but he's embarked on a secrecy-driven administration. Those reporters who cover the White House say this is the most secretive of all. They are obsessed with secrecy." Doyle, a visiting professor of history at GVSU, said Bush has been able to expand his reach because there is no "counterforce" or coalition of countries that can stand up to the United States, and "there's no domestic opposition. The Democratic party has rolled over." But, as Bush is facing criticism for the growing troubles in Iraq -- more soldiers have died since he announced the end of major combat operations -- Porter said he expects him to rebound. "I think he is nimble enough to make the adjustments," Porter said.
The Grand Rapids Press
Why can't he get a conservative Education Bill through Congress?
Why is his new EPA Administrator being held up by Hillary Klintoon?
Why isn't Zacharias Mousaoui dead?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Does the term "ankle biters" come to mind? These are small and irrelevant people, trying to pump up their importance by attacking someone who is large and important. It is the same motive as would-be presidential assassins, except that academics are to timorous to actually "do" anything.
Does that about cover the waterfront?
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Paying the Wrong Piper," discussion thread on FR. Article is also on ChronWatch.
The most well-known instance of the Bush administration's assumption of executive privilege has been Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to divulge even the barest details of his Energy Task Force meetings, Rozell said.
I see. Those must be the American, er, Bushian abuses of power that caused 911.
Scary stuff. The Leninist adjunct profs are even allowed to rot the brains of kids at Podunk U in flyover country. I believe ole' Vlad did say he'd sell us the rope we'd hang ourselves with.
I expected it to be much worse than it was.
"That's what happens when the president gets the upper hand in a crisis," he said. "Bush pledged to be more open, but he's embarked on a secrecy-driven administration. Those reporters who cover the White House say this is the most secretive of all. They are obsessed with secrecy."
Sure. We should let our enemies know all our business. I once heard Ramsey Clark -- long before I found out he was a communist -- demand that the government's books be open, for all the world to see. I thought he was just naive and well-meaning. I didn't know then that he was a traitor.
Doyle, a visiting professor of history at GVSU, said Bush has been able to expand his reach because there is no "counterforce" or coalition of countries that can stand up to the United States, and "there's no domestic opposition. The Democratic party has rolled over."
Aside from the lie about there being no "domestic opposition," this guy is complaining that America isn't losing. Another traitor. He wants America to be destroyed, and replaced with a system where people of his ilk would be shot on a regular basis.
I didn't see any mention of adjunct profs. The guy you cited is a "visiting prof." There's no such thing as a visiting adjunct professor, and while some adjuncts manage to read papers at conferences, when they do, they are treated like third-class citizens, and virtually never cited in academic or news reports.
Why then have there been no more planes flying into building since Prisident Bush started his "imperialist" campaign?
Prof. Brafff couldn't make this "scholarly conference". :)
Besides, I thought the title pretty much spoke for itself.
39 countries have troops and/or support teams in Iraq, yet these "scholars" claim that Bush is a "unilateralist."Yawn... How will such "scholars" explain Polish troops in the coalition if they are the ones who end up capturing Saddam hussein?!
"Oh, it's unilateral except for Poland, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia, and 33 other countries" the uneducated morons will spout.
Based on her running buddies . . . "a longtime peace activist and licensed ship captain" . . . who for some reason seems to be qualified to serve on panel discussions involving terrorism at GVSU, I would also have to question whether Mizzzzzzzzzzzzz Diven is actually "an expert on U.S. foreign policy." I suspect this is the kind of expert who would fit right in with the State Department.
It was posted in November of 2001 -- which, to me, is too damn close to 9-11 to be inviting a "longtime peace activist" and licensed sea captain to be at the helm of a panel discussion on terrorism.
But that's just me.
You pointed out--The guy you cited is a "visiting prof." There's no such thing as a visiting adjunct professor, ...
Thanks for being so precise on the semantics. I guess I don't understand how a guy can be considered a professor at the college and yet be visiting. Nonetheless he's still a Leninist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.