Is the collapse of the Post-New Deal, Pre-Watergate "imperial presidency" inevitable?

What I mean by this was the incredible power that the president from about the early 40s to just before Watergate, so things like:

  • The intelligence services being accountable to only the president.
  • The public having very high trust with the president (and the broader government) and treating the office with an unusual amount of respect.
  • Journalists willing to overlook potential scandals from Presidents.
  • Party bosses have complete power over the party including being able to pick the nominee.
  • Having basically no disclosure of campaign finance laws.

Is the collapse of these norms basically inevitable. Or could they have survived for long with an ATL 60s and 70s? If so, how long for?
 
  • The intelligence services being accountable to only the president.
In foreign policy, I'd argue that we still have an Imperial Presidency, or maybe an Imperial Presidency Light.

Democrats re-took the House in '06 in part on running to bring the war in Iraq to an end, and yet are persuaded to go along with the "surge," that is, with escalating the war.

Pres. Obama increased drone warfare with nay a peep of protest. Okay, maybe a few groups like CodePink Women for Peace, and maybe Jeremy Scahill and his book Dirty Wars. But the vast majority of citizens, often very confident people in work life, family life, perhaps even involved in school and the local community, but they generally just don't have the interest, the track record, the experience, the skills, to speak out with the same confidence on matters of war and peace.

And I think there was a somewhat recent controversy within the last five years or so in which I think either the CIA or NSA didn't play it straight with the Senate oversight committee and Sen. Dianne Feinstein basically called them out in public over it.
 
Last edited:
Top