hear a collective groan go up when President Barack Obama announced that he planned to deal with his recent setbacks by “speaking directly to the American people.” After 158 interviews and 411 speeches in 2009, who’s clamoring to hear more from a president whose microphone addiction rivals that of President Bill Clinton?
If you think we have it bad, pity the Venezuelans, whose strongman president, Hugo Chavez, rules the airwaves with his own talk show. “Hello, President!” airs Sundays, sometimes for up to eight hours, and it features Chavez singing, insulting his enemies, giving shout-outs to Fidel Castro and, on one occasion, describing a gut-wrenching bout of diarrhea he’d had while filming the show.
From afar, the Chavez regime seems like something from a comic dystopian novel. But it’s no laughing matter.
Last week, Chavez ordered six TV stations off the air, ostensibly for refusing to broadcast his frequent and interminable speeches. His real motive was to squelch dissent amid raging inflation, rolling blackouts and growing public disgust with his lawless rule. So far, two students have died in anti-censorship protests.
Chavez is only the most recent example of our southern neighbors’ long-running problem with authoritarian presidents who decry U.S. “imperialism” as they push for increasingly imperial powers.
Ironically, though, when Latin American autocrats blame the region’s problems on Yankee influence, they may be more right than they know.
When the region’s former Spanish and Portuguese colonies gained independence in the early 19th century, they followed the U.S. example by adopting presidential systems.
In an influential 1990 article, “The Perils of Presidentialism,” political scientist Juan Linz argued that presidential systems are especially bad for developing countries because they encourage cults of personality and foster instability.
Thankfully in the U.S., our problems with the imperial presidency are far milder. Obama may rail against Fox News, but he wouldn’t dream of trying to shut it down.
Yet, the American president retains staggering powers at home and abroad. He can send the world’s most powerful military into battle at will, Congress’ power “to declare war” notwithstanding, and he can reshape vast areas of American life unilaterally via executive order.
That’s not to suggest that we ought to hold a constitutional convention and replace our presidential system with a parliamentary one. American-style separation of powers has its advantages, after all.
Without it, for example, there’s little doubt we’d have had socialized medicine long ago. Yale’s Ted Marmor, a leading historian of the U.S. health care system, argues that the main reason we don’t is that our Constitution’s framers rejected a parliamentary regime in which “electoral victories typically produce policy majorities.”
But we should remain vigilant about the peculiar dangers of our system. The despots who plague our southern neighbors offer a cautionary tale for those willing to cede still more power to populist presidents.
The lesson for all of us, north and south of the border, is watch our presidents closely, and check them when they try to slip their constitutional bonds.
Examiner columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of “The Cult of the Presidency.”