More is better

As we drag along toward the 2008 presidential election, it becomes more apparent with every public utterance of the Three Senators that a single, all-powerful executive is a bad idea whose time has passed. Who may have a better idea?

The Swiss. They do pretty superbly with chocolate, bank account privacy and precision watches. But that's not all. They believe, when it comes to government chief executives, more is better.

The Swiss have a number of long-term governance and political successes under their belt. Not having a power-crazed single executive is one of them. Their "plural presidency" seems to work well in a country focused on creating domestic peace, even-handed international relations and the widest possible prosperity. Perhaps it sounds bit strange because no major Western nation has a plural executive, although a case can be made that in parliamentary democracies the cabinet system has certain features that are similar.

After digesting Gene Healy's new book The Cult of the Presidency, I found myself thinking that a plural executive may well be the best solution to avoid a future American Caesar, given the perceptions and expectations Americans now place on the office after 100 years of "heroic" presidents starting with Teddy Roosevelt.

Julius and Octavian Caesar were able to finally destroy the Roman Republic by subverting the dual executive Consul system, with of course the connivance and acquiescence of the Senate. Along the way, they created a mythology of imminent and continuing crisis which, of course, only a strong leader would be able to solve.

Octavian's speeches sound very much like those any conservative Republican candidate would make today, while his uncle Julius comes over more like a liberal Democrat. The parallels to contemporary American politics are stunning and very disturbing.

America only avoided an increasingly-oppressive "elective monarchy" until Teddy Roosevelt came to office, and then only because certain key occupants of the office -- Grover Cleveland comes to mind instantly -- had a strong and abiding respect for the limitations placed on the federal government and the presidency itself by the framers of the Constitution. With the advent of the 20th century, and novel "progressive" interpretations of the role of government in society, those restraints went out the window.

Most of the presidents who have followed the first Roosevelt have expanded the power of the office, and fanned the expectations of the people as to what a president can and should be allowed to do. Most from Teddy to Wilson to Roosevelt to Bush II have thrived on having a huge imminent threat to fight, just like the Caesars 2000 years ago.

It should not surprise anyone aware of this history what Bush II has attempted. Hardly any president of the last century (Gerald Ford may be the only one) has actively sought to roll back the widened powers of the office. Almost all have sought to stretch executive powers further. At least two -- Nixon and Bush II -- have actually claimed to be above the law, in a similar sense as ancient kings and emperors.

So, a Swiss-style plural presidency looks very, very good as a means of avoiding a repeat of some very tragic history. I believe that whether Obama, Clinton or McCain arrives in the Oval Office the afternoon of January 20, 2009, he or she will set about aggrandizing the powers of the office still further, all in the name of the public good, however spun and packaged.