The End of the Imperial Presidency?

In the month-plus since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, comparisons to 9/11, arguably the last crisis to shake the nation in such a dramatic way, have abounded. The significance of the death toll — now well over 50,000 — has been illustrated by comparisons to the nearly 3,000 who died in the attacks two decades ago. This blog has warned readers not to treat this crisis with the same prescriptions of the last ones; while others have cautioned about repeating the errors made in the aftermath of 9/11 or noted the stark contrast between the unity that followed the attacks with the partisan rancor that has accompanied this crisis.

Along with the typical lenses through which we view 9/11 — the uplifting patriotism that helped cope with the tragedy, the rushed decision to invade two countries in its aftermath, the bloated security state that was formed as a result — the attacks in 2001 shaped our politics in another, more subtle, way.

Although the concept of the “Imperial Presidency” was popularized in the 1960s, and the Executive has remained disproportionately powerful ever since, the transformation of our politics into a mostly national entity fully actualized after 9/11. The attacks eventually defined an entire era of American politics, in which the President became empowered relative to other branches of the government, and federal politics were elevated above their state and local alternatives.

To be sure, governors, as well as state and local governments more broadly, have remained influential in the past 20 years. But, to the media — and, by extension the politically inclined populace — the lens of political action shifted dramatically to the Presidency and Congress.

Gone are the days in which Governors like Ann Richards, Mario Cuomo, or Huey Long were prominent national figures. Instead, the most important members of the Democratic Party’s progressive insurgency are Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders; the face of the establishment is Speaker Nancy Pelosi; while the debate in the Republican Party seems to be centered around the resurgent populist wing, led by Senator Josh Hawley, its more pro-business members like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the Tea Party, embodied by the House of Representatives’ “Freedom Caucus.”

Similarly, Presidential politics have also been dominated by members of the federal government. Between 1960 and 2008, no President was elected directly from a position in Congress. Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were Governors; Richard Nixon and George HW Bush had been in Congress, but both became Vice President before ascending to the Oval Office; and Gerald Ford served in the House, but was never elected President.

However, in the elections since 9/11, the Democratic Party has nominated two tickets consisting only of Senators (Kerry/Edwards and Obama/Biden) — the first such tickets, in either party since 1964. No Governor has appeared on a Democratic Party ticket since 1992, and no sitting Governor has been a major party nominee since Bush in 2004.

National politics’ aversion to statewide executives has been most obvious in the past two election cycles, when Governors have utterly failed to make inroads in either party’s primary process. In 2016, the Republican field contained three highly regarded, popular governors, including two from potentially important swing states. Yet, only one of the top five delegate getters had been a Governor.

In 2020, on the Democratic side, almost all of the current or former governors gained no traction, withdrawing before any votes were cast, and not a single one of them was among the seven candidates to eventually capture a delegate.

Now, that reality appears to be quickly eroding.

Donald Trump, who has in the past been accused of having authoritarian tendencies, has ceded some of his presidential duties during the pandemic. He has not been the driving force behind any legislation or enacted anything close to national lockdown standards. His role during the COVID crisis has mostly been relegated to his now-defunct daily briefings in which the President typically derided the media and articulated contrasting opinions on the severity of the virus.

Conversely, governors have been launched into the national spotlight. Democratic governors Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom have used this opportunity to hold daily briefings, events to which even those residing in other states have tuned in to.

Republican Governors, namely Charlie Baker, Mike DeWine, and Larry Hogan have earned bipartisan praise for their handling of their crisis, especially as they have gone against some of the president’s stated beliefs.

The rise of these Governors is likely to manifest itself in national politics in the not-too-distant future. Gretchen Whitmer, the Governor of Michigan who had a minimal national profile just a few short months ago, has been mentioned as a member of Joe Biden’s Vice Presidential shortlist.

Others are already musing about the possibility of Cuomo or Newsom running for President in 2024, should Trump be re-elected or should Biden decide not to run four years from now.

Our last national crisis was of a national security nature. This meant that the President, his cabinet, and, to a lesser extent, Congress would wield outsized power. President Bush launched two wars, Congress enacted the Patriot Act, and our politics was more generally reoriented towards the federal government. Even as this crisis began, the focus was on Trump’s rhetoric and how Congress would handle the ramifications of the pandemic.

However, the ensuing realities have made many Americans — especially those concerned about the coronavirus — to be thankful both for the federal system that has permitted states to implement lockdowns and stay-at-home orders as they see fit and for the real leadership that some of these Governors have provided.

Public health issues are naturally a state-level consideration, and this particular public health crisis has reminded many of the importance of state governments, and could — perhaps — lead to a larger de-centralization of our government and have long-term electoral implications for our country.