The United States of America has a president because the founders of our system of government found a strong executive (relative to their initial formulation of executive power) integral to the satisfactory functioning of our system of government (perhaps this statement can be extended to ALL forms of government; however, as this is a class on the American Presidency, I will not concern myself with this question). The presidency has ballooned since the time of the founders. In some cases it can be said that it has simply enlarged naturally to keep pace with the burgeoning state of the US and its interconnectedness with the world. In others, it has undoubtedly grew as a result of conceited efforts on the part of the president and his cabinet to increase their share of power. As a result of all this expansion, it is essentially established fact that, since the end of WWII, the president has become the most powerful person in the world.

There is significant irony in this fact, as the presidency was originally imagined as a weakened alternative to the kings and dictators of the world. Over the years, it is clear a dual phenomenon of the strengthening of the American president as well as a weakening of the center of executive power in foreign governments has resulted in the president rising to its unipolar position. Though the founders would have certainly been dismayed or at the very least perplexed at what the office has become, if they had a broader outlook they would certainly note how the American form of government gained prominence across the globe and rejoice at the fact that, though the president’s power has increased over the years, it is still in many regards the same institution set up around 250 years ago.

As I alluded to in my opening, the trials the founders faced with the executive set up under the Articles of Confederation showed that their new system of government could not function without a strong executive. Without a figurehead to bind the disparate states together under some level of authority, it would be impossible for the federal government to operate and keep the nation equal and binded together. The fact that it was necessary even under such a new, radical system of self-governance perhaps speaks to the nature of rule: that there must be power vested at the top of a power structure. Another key facet of power is that it tends to consolidate itself given the chance. The lack of foresight on behalf of the founders allowed (and, given power’s consolidating attributes, even destined) the presidency to turn into what it is today. Given these ruminations, I would say that the reason we have our paradoxical, strongly-weakened presidency is due to the nature of power and the founder’s inability to understand it.