The Imperial Presidency
Directions: Read the excerpt provided and answer the questions below. Be sure to cite textual evidence
wherever it is appropriate to support your claims.
QUESTIONS ON SCHLESINGER
1. Who is the author and what do we know about him?
Schlesinger coined one of the most famous and often-quoted political phrases. He looked back on
“imperial presidency”
2. What caused power to shift from Congress to the Presidency in the 20th century?
3. Why did the centralization of Presidential power begin with foreign policy?
4.
What lessons about presidential power does the author draw from the Cuban Missile Crisis?
5. According to the author, what role has secrecy played in the rise of the imperial presidency?
Secrecy gives them the power to withhold and leak and lie. It gives an unfair power to the presidency.
6. What does Schlesinger mean when he says “Watergate was a symptom, not a cause.”?
He is saying the events of Watergate were a symptom of this kind of “imperial presidency” and not the
event that caused the presidency to shift and be this way.
7. Rewrite this sentence in your own words “Watergate blew away the mystique of the mandate and
reinvigorated the constitutional separation of powers.”
Watergate blew away the mystery of the mandate just like Arvind blowing away my sorrows last night
and strengthened constitutional power separation.
8. What is the imperial presidency? Does it still exist today? Justify your answer.
1. Schlesinger's assertion that "Watergate was a symptom, not a cause," emphasizes that the scandal was a
manifestation of the underlying issue of expanded presidential power. This misuse of power had been growing
before Nixon's Administration, and Watergate was an inevitable outbreak of the systemic problems within the
executive branch rather than the original problem itself.
2. "Watergate shattered the illusion of the presidential mandate and revitalized the distribution of powers as
outlined by the Constitution."
3. The imperial presidency refers to a U.S. presidency that operates with fewer constraints from Congress and
is more independent in its decision-making, particularly in foreign affairs and sometimes in domestic policy.
This concept is often associated with a presidency that acts almost monarchically, with increased secrecy and
less transparency. As for its existence today, opinions differ. Some argue that post-Watergate reforms have
curbed the imperial presidency, while others believe that the trend towards a stronger executive branch
continues, evidenced by presidential actions in the realms of national security, war-making, and emergency
powers. The extent to which these powers are checked by Congress, the judiciary, and public opinion varies,
leading to a dynamic and ongoing debate about the balance of power within the U.S. government.
4. Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, Schlesinger draws several lessons about presidential power. Firstly, he
notes that in certain acute emergencies, such as the missile crisis, unilateral executive decision-making may
be necessary due to the severity of the threat and the need for secrecy and swift action. Secondly, he observes
that while President Kennedy handled this particular situation effectively through executive consultation within
a small group, this instance should be seen as an exceptional case rather than a precedent for unilateral
presidential action in less dire circumstances.
5. Secrecy has played a significant role in the rise of the imperial presidency, according to Schlesinger. It
fostered a culture within the executive branch that considered foreign policy to be its exclusive domain,
justifying the withholding of information from Congress and the public, selective leaking, and even deliberate
falsehoods to defend policy decisions. This secrecy led directly to a growing mistrust of the government and
created a fertile ground for abuse of power, as seen in the Watergate scandal.
6. When Schlesinger says, “Watergate was a symptom, not a cause,” he means that the scandal represented
the outgrowth of deeper institutional issues—namely, the excessive and unchecked expansion of presidential
power. Watergate was not the origin of these problems but rather a consequence of a system that had been
brewing for some time, which allowed for such abuses to occur.
7. "Watergate removed the veil of unquestioned authority from presidential power and renewed the system of
checks and balances that is fundamental to the U.S. Constitution."
8. The imperial presidency describes a state of the U.S. presidency where the executive has assumed powers
that exceed the limits traditionally imposed by the Constitution and diminish the roles of the other branches of
government, primarily through the consolidation of authority on matters of foreign policy and domestic affairs.
Whether it still exists today is debated. Some argue that the imperial presidency has been curtailed by
post-Watergate reforms, increased congressional oversight, and heightened media and public scrutiny. Others
contend that the trend continues due to the President's expanded role in national security, engagement in
military conflicts without a formal declaration of war, signing statements that challenge the intent of Congress,
and broad use of executive orders that bypass legislative processes. The existence and extent of the imperial
presidency depend largely on the incumbent President's actions, the context of current events, and the
responses of the other branches of government and the general public.