On "Constitutional Crisis": Part V

The history of the U.S. presidency since the end of World War II seems incontrovertibly to argue for its replacement as an institution if democratic norms compatible with the realities of twenty-first century politics are to be created. The U.S. need a parliamentary system that would encourage a multiplicity of parties; it needs a democratically elected prime minister. The imperial presidency represents a danger both domestically and in terms of our relationships with other nations. Take this morning's news as an example. President Bush's response to the detonation of an underground nuclear device by North Korea included statements to the effect that "the United States is committed to diplomacy," and that the detonation was "a provocative act." Only a child could take such rhetoric seriously coming from the head of state who recklessly baited the North Koreans by citing them as part of the axis of evil, issued policy statements that reserved our right to pre-emptively attack our enemies, and then proved that his government was willing to do so by fabricating intelligence as a rationale for an illegal invasion of Iraq. The imperial presidency invites Alice in Wonderland rhetorical inversion delivered with sublime arrogance. No head of state liable to the standards of transparency, of "open covenants openly arrive at," would dare such disingenuous rhetoric.