Shapiro began his October 13, 2008, Wabash lecture enlightening the crowd that the source of today’s increase of Presidential powers stems from three events that all occurred within the last 100 years: the Truman administration during the 1952 Steel Strike, Dick Cheney’s tenure in Congress, and 9/11. He explained that all of this culminated into the hallmark of a classic shell game, or an attempt to defraud a person or group through their own purposely misled confidence. Shapiro argued that in this shell game, the Bush administration increased the power of the executive branch but made it appear to legitimate follow the Constitution. The American public was kept from realizing that the administration defrauded not only them, but more significantly, the U.S. Constitution as well.

The 1952 Steel Strike centered on the issue of how much power a wartime President is legally allotted by the Constitution. In the time of the Korean War, President Truman saw it in the nation’s best interest to seize control of the privately owned steel mills. The Defense Production Act of September, 1950, permitted the President the requisition of any facilities, property, equipment, supplies, component parts of raw materials needed for the national defense, as well as gave the President the authority to impose wage and price controls. This was essentially eminent domain on private steel mill companies. The Act prompted the United Steelworkers of America to organize a strike in opposition to what they believed was a gross abuse of power. Upon the strike, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1952 case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that the President had no authority to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the United States Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The President’s attempt to seize more power through the Defense Production Act was deemed unconstitutional, but even still, it began a gradual elevation of Presidential power that has since expanded in subsequent administrations.

Fast-forward to the 1980’s and we see Dick Cheney’s role as a Congressman from Wyoming. While in Congress, Cheney was able to circumvent the Constitution’s ambiguity on Presidential power. Shapiro’s evidence of this was the results of the Iran-Contra scandal of 1986. As the scandal became unearthed, a special commission was formed to investigate the shady actions of the involved persons and consider how much blowback the scandal caused. Upon the conclusion of the investigation Cheney authored a controversial minority opinion, arguing that the most significant factor behind the Iran-Contra scandal was the President not having enough power to direct his foreign policy. He stated, “Congressional actions to limit the President in this area therefore should be reviewed with a considerable degree of skepticism. If they interfere with the core presidential foreign policy functions, they should be struck down.” Cheney claimed that the Constitution provides for a strong President who has the Constitutional authority to operate his office as he sees fit. This was very significant, Shapiro argued, since it laid the foundation of the Bush administration’s view of executive authority.

The final factor in this relatively recent spike in executive power, Shapiro continued, was 9/11. The tragic events of September, 2001, created a “nation at war” mentality, a mentality that often can lead to widespread breakdown in social law and order. So, in Cheney’s theory, in such times as that it is the duty of the President to step in and take full control of the situation and act as he best sees fit. After the attacks the result was a wide spectrum of laws being passed and implemented, among which where the controversial PATRIOT Act and the FISA bill, both of which smack of unjust abuse of power.

The effect of these three events, Shapiro claimed, has been a dramatic shift in the balance of power within the government, whereby the executive branch has gained much more power and the legislative and judicial branches have suffered a considerable shrinking of power. If a President claims to have the Constitutional authority to operate as he sees fit, he doesn’t have to follow the laws Congress passes or act according to how the Supreme Court interprets the laws. The best evidence of this is the Presidential Signing Statements, where the President writes a pronouncement on a bill directly before he passes it into a law. In other words, the President can write anything on any bill, modifying the meaning of a duly enacted law, and pronounce that he may or may not follow this part or that he interprets this particular section differently than how it is meant to be interpreted. It should be noted that the Bush administration has issued more signing statements in eight years than all of the previous Presidencies combined.

But as Shapiro mused, now that the Bush administration has come to a close, the question remaining is what President Obama will do now that he has inherited the executive branch and its elevated power. Will he continue the trend started by the Bush administration or will he place the executive branch back into the balance of power among the legislative and judicial branches? It is too early to speculate possible answers, but I would place a cautious eye on his plans as he begins his first days in office. More importantly, in light of these three historical events we should take notice of his political career and the individuals he has appointed to be in his office and cabinet.

It is disturbing to note that while President Obama was a state Senator for Illinois during 1997-2004 and then a United States Senator in 2005, he was among the realm of the corrupt Illinois Governors George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich. When Governor Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris as the replacement of Obama’s senate seat, the people of Illinois as well as the Democrats of the United States Senate cried foul, charging that any appointee chosen by Blagojevich may very well be tainted with the very corruption that laces Blagojevich’s office. While Obama himself is supposedly untouched by Illinois corruption, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been called an “ally” of Blagojevich. Also, Governor of New Mexico and Secretary of Commerce appointee Bill Richardson recently backed down only due to a federal investigation into shady ties with a company that has done business with his state. Other appointments Obama has made include many former members of Bill Clinton’s administration, and we all know how “honest” an administration that was. Based on these and other appointments made by Obama I would say that the actions of the administration should be heavily scrutinized in order to judge accurately their utilization of executive power.

This all should cause a great deal of concern for the American people, since the increasing of Presidential powers by means of deception, corruption, or other means, is not only unconstitutional but utterly tyrannical. The American people should not and must not fall hook, line, and sinker for the assumed “constitutional” actions of the executive branch, which in fact might be sham interpretations to serve as a means to a tragic end: to make the executive branch the sole authority of the United States government.

Especially in this time of war, special concern should be placed on the lessons history teaches us. While it is enumerated in the Constitution that the President is to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, this doesn’t give him free reign to do as he pleases. He is to act according to the laws of Congress (most especially the Constitution) and to the interpretation of those laws by the Supreme Court. Dick Cheney’s actions as a Congressman, when he sought to decrease the power of Congress and increase the power of the President, were a grave foreshadowing long before his tenure as Vice President. Even though this nation may be at war, the President has no Constitutional power to assert his authority as he sees fit, whether in wire tapping the homes of American citizens (FISA Bill) or in denying the same citizens the right to due process even if it is in the name of national security. Despite the benefits these laws seem to bring, their very essence should alarm the American people. The wise words of Benjamin Franklin, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”, give a chilling testament to this.

Though the office of the Presidency has seen a whole host of individuals with a wide spectrum of characteristics, I feel that the office should be one most importantly of humility towards the American people. The President should be always called to uphold the oath he swore at the start of his term, “…to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States…to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Simple mistakes in reciting the oath may be forgivable, but the same slip-up in performing the oath while in office cannot be taken as light-heartedly. The Presidency was not, is not, nor ever shall be an office with the authority to solidify absolute power. The creation of or evolution into such an office would be a certain danger to the American people.

No matter Shapiro’s political alignment, I could not disagree with his fundamental point: as has been proved throughout history, in the end, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Related posts:

1. Respectfully Disagreed
2. Can __ Win? – Addressing media bias in the presidential elections
3. America’s Seven Deadly Sins: Loch Johnson’s Critique of American Foreign Policy

It’s not like we should be surprised. In an environment of freedom, citizens inevitably critique authority with relentless aggression. Perhaps it comes with our origin. Maybe it’s the idea that two centuries ago, a select group of Americans overthrew the established leader because of his tyranny. Of course, the king had problems. Parliament didn’t help either. But, just maybe, our founding fathers inadvertently set a precedent of disrespect for authority by ousting the king from our continent.

Not that they were without cause. Fundamental differences only grew between Great Britain and the colonies. Separation was inevitable. Yet personal attacks on authority figures demeans the country as a whole. By delegitimizing the historical significance of a governing office, citizens demean the country as a whole, regardless of their intentions.

There are times when this is necessary. Yet critiquing a leader through exaggeration and insults help no one.

Especially over the past year, critiques of President George W. Bush often betray the critic to be narrow-minded, arrogant and disrespectful of the nation’s highest office.

That, of course, is a tall charge. I’m not going to say it started with Bush (I’ve made fun at Clinton often enough to know that). In fact, I’m not even convinced that the problem of disrespect for public authority started in America. Yet it’s quite obvious that the problem has propagated beyond the realm of debate into the sphere of prejudice.

Think about it. Democrats flip open the New York Times and gawk at statistics of Bush’s War of Terror compiled by Democrat journalists. Republicans turn on Fox News and are fed opinions by eloquent Republicans. On Inauguration Day, Democrats hailed the end of the Bush Regime and Republicans bemoaned the end of the free world (while buying guns and ammo, of course). And neither side really cared about what the other had to say.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending Bush’s actions. But I do recognize that history alone will judge this president. Today, we are all too caught up in partisan-fueled rhetoric. Our fundamental differences blind us to alternative ideas.

The Republican reaction certainly hasn’t been without fault either. The reaction to Barack Obama’s election shows the increasing tendency of everyone everywhere to exaggerate. Already, I’ve been invited to the “Impeach Obama” Facebook group. Definitive judgments must only be made with the perspective of history. Because of nature of national leadership, it is literally impossible to make informed judgments without access to all the information in the President’s hands.

As President Bush said to Time reporter Nancy Gibbs, “There ought to be a rule where no one writes history about your short term until a generation of those who never voted for you or against you show up.”

There are limits, of course. Should President Obama ever actually unilaterally
decide to set up a caliphate state (and take our guns and bankrupt corporate America), then it is the right and responsibility of the people to abolish the oppressive authority. As it stands, the man has barely entered office.

This, of course, is only the most basic of requirements for a citizen of the United States. Here at Wabash, we are called to an even higher standard. So where citizens must only show respect for the office, gentlemen must show respect for the person.

This doesn’t force us into a realm of political relativism, where our voiced opinions must be contingent on the current leaders. Yet it forces us to debate the issues alone; people are held in the highest regard. So while I personally detest the ideas of mass dependence
on government institutions, I recognize that President Obama is a capable man fairly given the most prominent political role in the free world.

While I disagree with many of his policies, I respect him, both on an individual and political level. The same was true for Bush. And Clinton.

We laugh off small jabs at credibility like they’re nothing. Perhaps we mean nothing by them. Yet our calling as citizens of the United States and as Wabash men must propel our level of discourse beyond disrespectful and classless behavior.

Related posts:

1. America’s Greatest Shell Game: The Increase of Presidential Powers

Beigi: I was born in Iran. I finished high school in Iran, and came to the U.S. in 1975 when I was 18. At the time Iran was a peaceful country on a path to progress and modernity. Then we had a radical revolution. I finished my engineering degree in New Jersey. I worked as an engineer, and started to write and was published in London. I went to graduate school at Cornell, received my Master’s in public policy and began work on my Ph.D. there. Because I was very active in Iranian affairs, I worked for the son of the late Shah as the communications director until May 2001. 9/11 happened which changed everything. I was with him for six years. I [now] work part time as an engineer and dedicate the rest of my time to issues relating to Iran particularly and the Middle. East. The issues of terrorism are something that is a moral obligation to do something about, especially for somebody like me who is from Iran.

WCU: Is the Middle East capable of democracy?

Beigi: Democracy is a Western invention. Just like technology in the West, it has been exported to the East and they have put it into good use. The Western intellectual product can also be put to good use. On the other hand, the concept of individual freedom, or the modernity as a whole or the concept of John Locke – American principles, as I like to call them – the freedom, the free market, the freedom to pursue happiness, the freedom to choose your own life, and be responsible for the consequences of your own actions. These ideals are natural. These are not an artificial invention for a time period. So these ideals can spread to the rest of the world easier than technology, a computer, or a car. Just like technology, a computer, or a car can make life easier, [it] has contributed to the well being of the people of the world, whether in the United States, or India, or Pakistan. The concept of individual responsibility can also benefit the people of the world. However, importing a car is much easier and simpler than the idea of democracy. The car can take a long time, but eventually people learn how to drive it. Democracy and a lot of American policy makers, intellectuals make that mistake. They only look at the superficial aspects of democracy. They look at the rule of the majority and elections and think that that constitutes a democracy. Democracy requires a responsible citizen. Importation of the car is very simple, but what is more difficult is to get to the idea that what kind of conditions led to the invention of a car. Why is it that the Chinese were the first to discover gun powder, but they only used it for celebrations – creating noise and light? But why did Western minds use it to create dynamite and blow up mountains and make roads? Why was it a Western mind that was the first to conquer Everest, when Mt. Everest is in the middle of India and Nepal? It is not the car itself that I want to get at; it’s the concept and the idea that intellectuals, they have inquiry that is behind the creation of the car that led to the invention of the car. It’s the same with democracy. It is not just like importing an assembly plant and making cars; you need to have that confidence, that way of thinking that led to the invention of the car so they can come up with their own inventions. Democracy is the same. Its major points are the responsible citizen, educated citizens who can cooperate, who have the tolerance and they are able to recognize and respect each other. Until these issues have not been institutionalized in any country, they cannot democratize. So the difficulty that we have of promoting democracy in the Middle East region is not that it is something innately or naturally incapable of democratizing, it’s that there are some important factors, and we should concentrate on promoting those factors before democracy can flourish.

WCU: Some would say that Saddam Hussein was the barrier to democracy in Iraq, and since we removed him, democracy has not really been taking shape there. How would you respond to that?

Beigi: Saddam Hussein was not the only barrier to democracy. A lot of people in the Middle East said as soon as we had elections in Iraq, that we could declare democracy had been established. Democracy needs to be institutionalized. It is not like a press conference where you do it once and it’s over. Iraq was not ready for a full-fledged democracy, not as much as Iran is today. Iran should have been the first target. As long as the Iranian regime is in power, we will not meet any benchmarks in Iraq. The Iranian regime does not want to have a democratic Iraq because that’s not good for them. In order to promote democracy in Iraq, you need to think about the Iranian regime in Iran.

WCU: Do the Iranian people desire democracy?

Beigi: Yes they do. The evidence of that are the demonstrations by the labor, by the students, by the books they write, by the movies that they make. This shows that they understand the idea and they desire to be free.

WCU: Do you see a difference between the moderates and the hard-liners as the media puts them in Iran?

Beigi: As far as democratization or reform is concerned, no, absolutely not. They are all different players on the same team and they switch positions. One day they have to play a moderate and they play a moderate. One day they have to play a hard-liner, and they do so.

WCU: In one of your reports to Congress, you talked about political Islam. What exactly is political Islam, and how do we confront it?

Beigi: That’s the million-dollar question. Political Islam is when some social thinkers think that in order to confront the West and in order to deny the West, they politicize their religion, only to achieve their own economic goals. And since religion is a touchy subject, they were able to reach the hearts and minds of some people who were willing to be violent in promoting those ideas. That’s how the Islamic regime came to power in Iran. The best way to confront political Islam – we first need to talk about the necessity of confronting it. It’s a real thing; it is threatening Western civilization; it is threatening humanity. They openly talk about how they want to wipe Israel off the map. They openly talk about destroying America. And they openly challenge the West. So these elements are threatening the world. How do you confront them? By showing to the people of the Middle East or the Islamic countries, that the ideas that these political leaders are promoting do not have a solid base in their religion and also show the political motivation to delegitimize them.

WCU: What are your views on the Bush Doctrine of promoting democracy in the Middle East? How effective has it been thus far? Can it be effective in the future?

Beigi: I think it’s certainly imperative. I admire President Bush for his courage, for his moral courage to promote democracy. But I want to define that. By promoting democracy, unlike some of the leftist intellectuals have tried to spin it, this is not imposing American way of life on people who resist it. This is actually giving opportunity to the people of the Middle East to be able to choose for themselves to be free. So this is not an imposition. Those who deny their freedom are imposing their ideas on the people of the Middle East. The idea has not been so successful so far because of many difficulties. It has not been successful because the Islamic regime in Iran has been fighting it tooth and nail to defeat the project and they have won the battle so far. They are going to lose the war because the idea of freedom is a natural and universal idea.

WCU: Do you think that the conflict between Iran and the United States can be resolved without violence?

Beigi: If you mean the people of Iran, many independent reporters who have gone to Iran, they have actually reported that the Iranian people are a natural ally of the United States. They admire America, particularly and precisely because of American ideals. And in fact there is a long history. America has always been on the side of the Iranian people in their quest for freedom, going back to the [Iranian] Constitutional Revolution of 1906, where the Russian and British empires were helping the regime to stay in power and Americans were helping Iranians to promote democracy and freedom. So there is a long history. The Iranian people love Americans for their standing for freedom, for their ideals, and for what they have achieved. Iran is the only regime in the region that the regime is opposing to the United States, but the people love America. That does not happen to any other country. Now if you talk about the Iranian regime and the United States, no there is absolutely no way. There are two completely different ideas. One of them has to give in. Either it is the idea of progress, modernity, freedom, or the idea of imposing an artificial version of Islam on the entire world. Both of these cannot coexist. The negotiations that some of the Democratic candidates have said is completely useless to this regime because they do not want to negotiate. There is nothing that they can gain from negotiations. They want to eliminate the West; they want to eliminate Western ideals; they want to destroy America. There is nothing to negotiate. They don’t want to negotiate either.

WCU: Some say that the Shah’s reign and America’s support of the Shah was an ugly chapter in Iranian history because they claim the Shah was a tyrant. How would you respond to those claims?

Beigi: First of all, during the Shah, we did have some leftist terrorists who were in prison. Some of the present rulers of Iran, the terrorist rulers, were in prison. A lot of human rights organizations and Jimmy Carter made a big noise about violations of human rights in Iran. Why are they silent today that the regime is killing students by the hundreds? Why does nobody talk about the torture in Iranian prisons today? Executions, assassinations. Number two, most of those claims come from the misconception of the distorted fact of the 1953 coup that you may have heard about. This is 1953, at the height of the Cold War. Right after the Yalta agreement, the world was divided into the Western bloc and the Eastern bloc by the Soviet Union. Iran had a prime minister that was appointed by the Shah. The Iranian Constitution said that the Shah would appoint the prime minister and the parliament would approve him. [Mohammad] Mossadegh was the prime minister. He started to defy the British and Western powers and he wanted to be similar to the non-ally movement that there is today. He refused all the good offers from the West for Iranian oil. The Iranian oil was boycotted. The British would not buy. And the Iranian economy was in a really difficult position. Mossadegh refused all reasonable offers. He dissolved the parliament. Shah wanted to dismiss Mossadegh, but Mossadegh refused and he wanted to dismiss Shah. Shah left the country. There was a popular uprising and the CIA was on the side of the uprising people against the prime minister and wrongfully took all the credit for it. Now what you see on the left press on a daily basis is that the CIA overthrew a democratically elected prime minister who was promoting democracy in Iran. They forget that this was 1953. They forget it was the height of the Cold War. They forget that you had no choice; you could not be non-ally that you had to be either West or East. And they forget that Mossadegh had no future. Iran had to either become a Western Soviet bloc or be on the side of the United States. And we cannot forget the Yalta agreement. The Yalta agreement was not made as a joke. So most of the idea originates from that. In fact there was a book written by a New York Times reporter, that if you read the entire book, there’s not a single citation in it. [The book which is] half fiction [and written] by Stephen Kinzer, promotes the idea that [since] Mossadegh was overthrown the Middle East has lost the chance to democratize. This is not realistic. You do not understand what democracy means if you talk like that. The Shah was trying to promote modernity. In order to do that you need to have first a bureaucratic infrastructure. Then you need to have economic infrastructure. Then, only then, you can work on social infrastructure. Only after they build roads, a national economy and integrate them, only then, after education is the requirement for democratization, for participation of the people becomes necessary. So Shah was working on that, and with a country like Iran with some of the religious leaders opposing modernity, opposing progress on the basis that it was going to corrupt our virtues, Shah had to be autocratic. So he was autocratic in many ways. But there was no other way, and that’s when the radicals took over. Those who complain about the Shah – they should raise their volume much more over what is going on in Iran today. They are silent.

WCU: Thank you for your time.

Beigi: Thank you!

Related posts:

1. Iranian Reviews American Relations Since 1979
2. America’s Seven Deadly Sins: Loch Johnson’s Critique of American Foreign Policy
3. “Unabashedly Theological”: An Exclusive Interview with Dr. Douglas Farrow

One particularly interesting thing to note about CPAC is that is served as a staging ground for the majority of the main Republican presidential candidates, by allowing them to bring their candidacy for the White House to college students. The staffers present were fortunate enough to have lunch with a presidential hopeful Senator Sam Brownback, along with a handful of other college students. After lunch, Senator Brownback presented his plan for the presidency to the small group of students. Later, he received more than a little applause at the conference for his support of life, small government, and the protection of traditional marriage. The staffers also heard from popular Massachusetts
Governor Mitt Romney, who is also seeking the White House in 2008. Romney’s campaign is focused more on specifics, while some believe that this is necessary, others said that it is too early in the game to be making promises. Other more well-known candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, who made a surprise visit to CPAC, were also well-received, but also criticized for some more moderate views such as his pro-choice stance. One disappointment was that Senator John McCain declined his invitation to CPAC, which he received much criticism about later.

Perhaps the biggest highlight for the TWC staffers was being front-and-center when Ann Coulter made her joking remark about John Edwards and his run for the Democratic nomination that has been gleefully reproduced again and again on CNN and other news networks. Unfortunately, this was virtually the only sentence that made national news from the CPAC conference, not that anyone should be particularly surprised. The comment was made in a joking manner,
and following that she did make a statement that she in no way meant to imply that she was against homosexuals. However, none of that made it onto the six o’clock news.
Among the talks the staffers sat-in on were panels such as “Strategies for a Bold Conservative Future” with panelists like Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum) and the Honorable Kenneth Blackwell, former Ohio Secretary of State and honorary co-chair of the “Committee to re-elect George W. Bush”. They also attended other panels, such as “The Left’s Repeated Campaign Against the American Soldier” and “Are We Safer Than On 9/10? National Security 5 Years Later.”

Additionally, there were lectures by Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Tony Snow, Sean Hannity, and others. The staff also attended auxiliary sessions by various conservative organizations like Young America’s Foundation, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and others.
Overall, the four staffers had a blast at the conference. They learned a lot from every one of the sessions and came back excited to implement the ideas they discovered on campus in the upcoming year.

Related posts:

1. CPAC and the Future of the Republican Party
2. Nation of Bastards
3. “Nation of Bastards” Talk on November 12